This is in response to the film 100% Woman wherein Michelle Dumaresq is a Male-to-female mountain bike racer who is criticized for competing in the female category. I thought the video was a great example of someone who can take a life-questioning confusion of identity and make the most of her life (and indeed it appears she has). What I want to address is the negative remarks that were aimed at her by the people interviewed in the documentary.
I was shocked, but not surprised, by the remarks made against Michelle during the movie. While I can sympathize with their disdain for a man to race in their category, I can’t help but feel that their comments were coming from a point of origin centered on disgust for what Michelle did to herself, as opposed to a genuine concern for the spirit of competition (more on the spirit of competition later). It appeared to me that the people criticizing her were simply upset with the way she dealt with her identity. Surgery to change ones sex is stigmatized in our society, and often what can be heard when someone finds out that they’ve been talking to someone who has undergone such a surgery usually runs along the lines of: “Oh…” Where a person can show if they’re understanding or not is by the next words they utter.
Yet, it is a point of contention in today’s society, and I think that that’s the reason why most of the racers were circling the petition to get her banned. The reason for my belief in that charge is twofold: The racers had been told that she was granted the legal right based on a Canadian law based on biological research, to race by the Canadian Cycling Association (CCA), and that should have been enough. Yet when faced with this empirical, and rational evidence they still objected, this is because of the prejudice against sex change operations. The second point I wanted to make has to do with the spirit of competition. The racers did themselves no service to say that a man is a better racer than the women in those competitions. What ever happened to overcoming all odds, and not backing down? In a few of the races Michelle placed dead last, and even had a few accidents, and yet the accusations still flew. It all boils down to the stigma of her sexual, and gender-related situation that shouldn’t even be at issue, as she is considered a women.
On a personal note, I thought the most touching part of the documentary was when Michelle’s hero (the top-female racer… I forget her name) gave Michelle her support. It just shows that one person wasn’t afraid to race against her, or allow her to compete on the same course as her.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Rebel Girl/Guy - A Song NOT Done by Bikini Kill
Are transsexuals subverting gender construction? Are they rebelling against the confines of the sex, and gender roles that we, as a society, have built up? No, I don’t think so. The plight of transsexuals, or transgendered people is a tragic one. I can’t imagine living a life where an incredible part of your identity (made incredible only by societies insisting of it) is in constant question; but I don’t believe them to be flipping society the proverbial bird.
When a transgendered person decides to switch sexes, they are simply dropping the role of one and moving into another, effectively they are the new sex, and while they were once a member of the opposite sex, they have ceased to be. For all intents and purposes they are of their new sex, and behave like that sex.
A more rebellious action to take against the gender roles would be dressing in drag, which is more of a theater performance, that is, everyone knows that what they are witnessing is not a man but a man in woman’s clothing taking on a woman’s role (that is an example, the analogy can work the other way too, and indeed I’m an acquaintance of a drag ‘king’). That is a subversive action for it lets everyone know that you are performing the opposite role, and laughing in the face of preconceived gender notions, right to the shocked expressions of those who hold such notions aloft.
While I’m not scoffing at transsexuals, or transgendered people by any means, I am simply pointing out that there are rebellious sexual roles, and non-rebellious sexual roles.
When a transgendered person decides to switch sexes, they are simply dropping the role of one and moving into another, effectively they are the new sex, and while they were once a member of the opposite sex, they have ceased to be. For all intents and purposes they are of their new sex, and behave like that sex.
A more rebellious action to take against the gender roles would be dressing in drag, which is more of a theater performance, that is, everyone knows that what they are witnessing is not a man but a man in woman’s clothing taking on a woman’s role (that is an example, the analogy can work the other way too, and indeed I’m an acquaintance of a drag ‘king’). That is a subversive action for it lets everyone know that you are performing the opposite role, and laughing in the face of preconceived gender notions, right to the shocked expressions of those who hold such notions aloft.
While I’m not scoffing at transsexuals, or transgendered people by any means, I am simply pointing out that there are rebellious sexual roles, and non-rebellious sexual roles.
Wasserstrom and Pop-Culture
Wasserstrom’s argument is a unique one: that is, that we should regard sex as no more important than eye-color. This utopian idea would find it no stranger to label anyone sexually as it would be to label someone based upon eye color. This utopian idea, however begs the question, how do we reach such a point? His article doesn’t deal with such a topic, and indeed I don’t think he meant to. I believe Richard Wasserstrom was simply making a point that sex should entail no more discrimination than eye-color.
I don’t believe that such a point is reachable while the various human cultures continue along the path we are traveling upon. And here’s why: Popular music. Not just hip-hop but rock and roll takes great advantage of women in its appeal both lyrically and visually on album covers or in music videos. It’s hard to turn on the television and tune into Much Music without seeing scantily clad women in full-bore sexualized dance moves. When they’re in the video of a male artist there used as objects in order to add to the machismo of the main attraction.
Now, there are many female artists that do similar things in their own music videos or songs; and these are often to satisfy the will of a male audience. They’re pandering to a group that objectifies them within their own artwork.
If Wasserstrom’s ideal society were to take place we would have to journey into the realm of people’s personal tastes and try to change their minds there, altering even their choice in music. This is extremely difficult with a species that can be incredibly stubborn and traditional, as humans.
I don’t believe that such a point is reachable while the various human cultures continue along the path we are traveling upon. And here’s why: Popular music. Not just hip-hop but rock and roll takes great advantage of women in its appeal both lyrically and visually on album covers or in music videos. It’s hard to turn on the television and tune into Much Music without seeing scantily clad women in full-bore sexualized dance moves. When they’re in the video of a male artist there used as objects in order to add to the machismo of the main attraction.
Now, there are many female artists that do similar things in their own music videos or songs; and these are often to satisfy the will of a male audience. They’re pandering to a group that objectifies them within their own artwork.
If Wasserstrom’s ideal society were to take place we would have to journey into the realm of people’s personal tastes and try to change their minds there, altering even their choice in music. This is extremely difficult with a species that can be incredibly stubborn and traditional, as humans.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Ideas of Utopian Assimilationism
Sexual difference has its roots in the past, where it may have been a result of woman being at the mercy of the elements (and under protection of the males) during pregnancy, which is now no longer necessary (thanks in part to technology). Yet, what if we treated sex as analogous to eye color? It would then be just as strange to say that “a woman’s place is in the home” as it is to say that “a blue-eye’s place is in the home”. How do we get to that point? What if we had artificial in utero periods (test-tube babies, if you will)? Would that take the restrictive burden of childbirth off of the woman and into the utopian ‘sex-as-eye-color’ world? Shulamith Firestone advocates a radical change in how the two sexes are perceived. She argues that the act of reproduction should fall upon technology to help alleviate the role of women in the rearing of children. Richard Wasserstrom argues for assimilation in a less radical, yet equally utopian form. In this paper I will use the authors of these theories to better analyze the assimilationist or androgynous theory (called, for simplicity, in this essay the assimilationist ideal), and hopefully reach the conclusion that Wasserstrom’s assimilation through eye color is more favorable than Firestone’s assimilation. In order to do this I will look at Firestone’s radical argument for the raising of children in this assimilationist society and compare it with the less controversial (but no less radical) theory of Wasserstrom, which argues for a social disapproval of the sexual division.
First off, I will discuss Firestone’s radical argument for assimilation of the sexes. In her book ‘The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution’, she argues with the help of Marxism for a society where women do not have to bear the burden of child rearing alone (or a very large part of it, alone). Her qualms with the system as it is lies in the fact that women were (in the past) beholden to men due to the long time it took to produce a child. In this stage, a woman would be at the mercy of the elements, animals, other humans, and even the child itself (in the case of the very act of childbirth leading to death, or sickness). The fact that this burden lies solely with women is disconcerting, and tends to take a lot of control over their bodies away from women. This has led to the feeling that women are treated as a slave class, as she puts it: “the husband was the owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labor; and that reproduction of the human species was an important economic system distinct from the means of production.”
In order to remedy the modern malaise of sexual differentiation, she calls for four “Revolutionary Demands”: “(1) The freeing of women from the tyranny of reproduction by every means possible, and the diffusion of the child-rearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women”; “(2) The political autonomy, based on economic independence, of both women and children”; “(3) The complete integration of women and children into society”; and “(4) The sexual freedom of all women and children” . At first glance, these demands do not sound unreasonable; indeed men have enjoyed these for years. The more interesting is number one, which I shall discuss, and provide my problems with later on. Number two advocates for a greater influx of women into the workplace, and number three calls for the destruction of the social institutions that separate men from women. Both of these are interesting points (and I have some contention with number three), but I believe the bulk of her statements (and most controversial) lie in number one.
Before I go on to my objections of Firestone I’d like to present Wasserstrom’s argument for assimilation. In his paper ‘Sex Roles and the Ideal Society’ he paints a utopian picture of a world where the difference between the sexes is no more important than the difference between eye color. In his world it is just as foolish to claim that women aren’t as strong as men, as it is to claim that blue-eyed people are mentally inferior to brown-eyed people, today. He claims that the division between the sexes is limiting, and stunts human freedoms and development, “One strong, affirmative moral argument on behalf of the assimilationist ideal is that it does provide for a kind of individual autonomy that a substantially nonassimilationist society cannot provide.” A nonassimilationist society, he claims, is one in which institutions tend to socialize people in a way that women are servants to men . This creates a sort of human slavery, and is the antithesis of a just society. Wasserstrom believes that the division of labor as it is today leaves women with work that both sexes find unsatisfactory, and unfulfilling (housework, and raising of children), and that in his society the workload would be distributed equally between the sexes . He even refutes the claim that the division of the sexes is natural. There are many things that humans do that are against nature, such as accommodating the handicapped, and disabled, and even such mundane activities as eating with utensils, all of which are not found in the realm of wild animals .
Herein lies my objections to firestone, and why I think that Wasserstrom’s argument is a better one. Number one of Firestone’s demands deals with the women’s role as a means of production. In this demand Firestone states that technology can help alleviate the burden of childbirth from the woman, and thus have her be open to the many potentials that men are open to. This is done in two ways: First, with technology; where the in utero portion of childbirth is done with a machine (a test-tube baby) . This will free women for the nine-month period where she would normally be pregnant, and thus not hamper her ambitions. Secondly, she argues that after the child is born, it is still the woman’s role to care for it, while it is the male’s role to provide for the family. She claims that this stunts the mental growth in both women and men . A solution to this problem would be to have a community raise a child, have not just one mother and one father, but any number of any combination of the two. This would equally divide the duty and time of care between the two sexes, and promise emotional growth for all.
My qualms lie with the second proposal, wherein a community raises a child. I may just be arguing from my time, and my society (which is a patriarchic opposite to Firestone’s utopia), but I don’t believe that in many cases it’s optimal for a community to have as hands-on an approach to a child’s development as more identifiable less numerous set of parents (be they of the same sex or different sex). This is not to exclude single parents either, simply to say that too many parents may form a detachment within them for the child. What’s holding you to your position as caretaker for this child if he/she is not your offspring? More so, people are so varied, even within a community that the question arises of where does the child form his/her identity? Is it an identity to the community? This could lead into the dangerous realm of blind patriotism, where the child would be more vulnerable to a sort of mob mentality. Paranoia about community controlled children aside, a much better way would be to keep single or couple parent families and have adoption (or a sort of baby distribution) of the test-tube babies. The problem with this is that it doesn’t give equality to children, which is a part of her demands. For that I have no rebuttal that would fit in this paper, suffice it to say that I think she may be confusing the discrimination of children with a fostering of an undeveloped mind, or emotional state.
Wasserstrom’s argument is more appealing because it’s less abrasive to our values, yet still calls those values into question. Whereas Firestone seems to take many, if not all, of our values to be wrong; Wasserstrom leaves us with some, and advocates that we change the big ones, namely socialized attitude. For example, Wasserstrom doesn’t argue against the one or two parent families (he simply states that the nuclear family is not necessary), or even the biological prenatal state of a woman. This makes his world seem more reachable and indeed more appealing.
Imagining a world where there are no sexual differences seems both favorable, and frightening, if only because it’s such a departure from our world today. Yet it is hard to admit that there is equality between the sexes, or even anything close to equality. It almost seems as though it’s a faux-equality, an equality where on paper women can do anything that men can (attain the same jobs, own a business, write, vote, speak their mind, etc.), yet one only has to look at a beer commercial, or a music video to see that it’s an illusion. In the world of assimilationist theories Wasserstrom’s seems more favorable than Firestone’s because of it’s less revolutionary claims. Its goals seem more attainable, and utopian. Yet that is also a downfall of it; in that, unlike Firestone’s argument, it doesn’t explain how to attain that utopia, simply that we should. For all of Firestone’s abrasiveness, at least she can provide us with some sort of guideline for her ideology. Ironically, unlike Marx and Engels, the communists who inspired her.
First off, I will discuss Firestone’s radical argument for assimilation of the sexes. In her book ‘The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution’, she argues with the help of Marxism for a society where women do not have to bear the burden of child rearing alone (or a very large part of it, alone). Her qualms with the system as it is lies in the fact that women were (in the past) beholden to men due to the long time it took to produce a child. In this stage, a woman would be at the mercy of the elements, animals, other humans, and even the child itself (in the case of the very act of childbirth leading to death, or sickness). The fact that this burden lies solely with women is disconcerting, and tends to take a lot of control over their bodies away from women. This has led to the feeling that women are treated as a slave class, as she puts it: “the husband was the owner, the wife the means of production, the children the labor; and that reproduction of the human species was an important economic system distinct from the means of production.”
In order to remedy the modern malaise of sexual differentiation, she calls for four “Revolutionary Demands”: “(1) The freeing of women from the tyranny of reproduction by every means possible, and the diffusion of the child-rearing role to the society as a whole, men as well as women”; “(2) The political autonomy, based on economic independence, of both women and children”; “(3) The complete integration of women and children into society”; and “(4) The sexual freedom of all women and children” . At first glance, these demands do not sound unreasonable; indeed men have enjoyed these for years. The more interesting is number one, which I shall discuss, and provide my problems with later on. Number two advocates for a greater influx of women into the workplace, and number three calls for the destruction of the social institutions that separate men from women. Both of these are interesting points (and I have some contention with number three), but I believe the bulk of her statements (and most controversial) lie in number one.
Before I go on to my objections of Firestone I’d like to present Wasserstrom’s argument for assimilation. In his paper ‘Sex Roles and the Ideal Society’ he paints a utopian picture of a world where the difference between the sexes is no more important than the difference between eye color. In his world it is just as foolish to claim that women aren’t as strong as men, as it is to claim that blue-eyed people are mentally inferior to brown-eyed people, today. He claims that the division between the sexes is limiting, and stunts human freedoms and development, “One strong, affirmative moral argument on behalf of the assimilationist ideal is that it does provide for a kind of individual autonomy that a substantially nonassimilationist society cannot provide.” A nonassimilationist society, he claims, is one in which institutions tend to socialize people in a way that women are servants to men . This creates a sort of human slavery, and is the antithesis of a just society. Wasserstrom believes that the division of labor as it is today leaves women with work that both sexes find unsatisfactory, and unfulfilling (housework, and raising of children), and that in his society the workload would be distributed equally between the sexes . He even refutes the claim that the division of the sexes is natural. There are many things that humans do that are against nature, such as accommodating the handicapped, and disabled, and even such mundane activities as eating with utensils, all of which are not found in the realm of wild animals .
Herein lies my objections to firestone, and why I think that Wasserstrom’s argument is a better one. Number one of Firestone’s demands deals with the women’s role as a means of production. In this demand Firestone states that technology can help alleviate the burden of childbirth from the woman, and thus have her be open to the many potentials that men are open to. This is done in two ways: First, with technology; where the in utero portion of childbirth is done with a machine (a test-tube baby) . This will free women for the nine-month period where she would normally be pregnant, and thus not hamper her ambitions. Secondly, she argues that after the child is born, it is still the woman’s role to care for it, while it is the male’s role to provide for the family. She claims that this stunts the mental growth in both women and men . A solution to this problem would be to have a community raise a child, have not just one mother and one father, but any number of any combination of the two. This would equally divide the duty and time of care between the two sexes, and promise emotional growth for all.
My qualms lie with the second proposal, wherein a community raises a child. I may just be arguing from my time, and my society (which is a patriarchic opposite to Firestone’s utopia), but I don’t believe that in many cases it’s optimal for a community to have as hands-on an approach to a child’s development as more identifiable less numerous set of parents (be they of the same sex or different sex). This is not to exclude single parents either, simply to say that too many parents may form a detachment within them for the child. What’s holding you to your position as caretaker for this child if he/she is not your offspring? More so, people are so varied, even within a community that the question arises of where does the child form his/her identity? Is it an identity to the community? This could lead into the dangerous realm of blind patriotism, where the child would be more vulnerable to a sort of mob mentality. Paranoia about community controlled children aside, a much better way would be to keep single or couple parent families and have adoption (or a sort of baby distribution) of the test-tube babies. The problem with this is that it doesn’t give equality to children, which is a part of her demands. For that I have no rebuttal that would fit in this paper, suffice it to say that I think she may be confusing the discrimination of children with a fostering of an undeveloped mind, or emotional state.
Wasserstrom’s argument is more appealing because it’s less abrasive to our values, yet still calls those values into question. Whereas Firestone seems to take many, if not all, of our values to be wrong; Wasserstrom leaves us with some, and advocates that we change the big ones, namely socialized attitude. For example, Wasserstrom doesn’t argue against the one or two parent families (he simply states that the nuclear family is not necessary), or even the biological prenatal state of a woman. This makes his world seem more reachable and indeed more appealing.
Imagining a world where there are no sexual differences seems both favorable, and frightening, if only because it’s such a departure from our world today. Yet it is hard to admit that there is equality between the sexes, or even anything close to equality. It almost seems as though it’s a faux-equality, an equality where on paper women can do anything that men can (attain the same jobs, own a business, write, vote, speak their mind, etc.), yet one only has to look at a beer commercial, or a music video to see that it’s an illusion. In the world of assimilationist theories Wasserstrom’s seems more favorable than Firestone’s because of it’s less revolutionary claims. Its goals seem more attainable, and utopian. Yet that is also a downfall of it; in that, unlike Firestone’s argument, it doesn’t explain how to attain that utopia, simply that we should. For all of Firestone’s abrasiveness, at least she can provide us with some sort of guideline for her ideology. Ironically, unlike Marx and Engels, the communists who inspired her.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why shouldn't homosexuals be as miserable as straight people?
Undermining Tradition: The debate for Same-Sex Marriage
The debate surrounding Same-Sex Marriages is a contentious one. It has opinions and justifications running the gamut from: It goes against civil liberties, to: it goes against the natural order of things . Yet within all the rhetoric that gets tossed around back and forth on both sides there is a fundamental statement that is made by those who are opposed to these types of unions. This statement is that Same-Sex Marriage undermines the traditional heterosexual marriage, either through a perversion of the purpose of marriage (that is, to raise a family), or because it flaunts homosexual culture (a culture believed to be debauched) in the face of traditional, heterosexual, marriage. I believe this ‘undermining notion’ to be false, as it seems to imply that marriage is too much for, or out of the realm of control of, homosexual couples; and that is simply not the case. Both the rearing of children, and the management of an ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship are wholly within the abilities of homosexual couples.
First off, what do I mean by ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship? An ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship is one in which two people can love each other and form a monogamous bond based upon trust; responsibility; and the aforementioned, love. This is in response to the claim by those against same-sex marriages that homosexual couples flaunt homosexual culture in the face of heterosexual marriage. How the opponents to same-sex marriage believe this ‘flaunting’ is achieved is that homosexual couples will bring into a marriage certain characteristics of their homosexual life which are perceived as debauched. Andrew Sullivan describes these perceived characteristics in his essay entitled: ‘The Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage’ as: “fleeting emotional commitments; promiscuous sex; disease; social ostracism; and the flaunting of standards of public decency, and self-restraint .” These characteristics do indeed seem detrimental to the family unit, as they often involve a rejection of responsibility, or are causes of woe. Lets assume for the sake of argument that these are, indeed, characteristics of homosexual lifestyle. The question then becomes: Would the welcoming into the realm of marriage lay these characteristics to waste? Sullivan seems to think so. “There are very few social incentives of the kind conservatives like for homosexuals not to be depraved: … no institution to encourage fidelity or monogamy, precious little religious or moral outreach to guide homosexuals into more virtuous living ” [italics his]. An institution such as marriage might be just the thing to encourage a more responsible, less woe-stricken, homosexual life. In other words, if this debauched life is what homosexuals are living in now, free from the union of marriage, won’t a union of marriage be just the right solution? Certainly those debauched characteristics are no more a part of being a homosexual, than the same characteristics are a part of being a wild (heterosexual) bachelor; who can eventually be tamed and settle down into a nice marriage. The ability to adopt the same characteristics of a relationship are no more foreign to homosexuals than they are to heterosexuals, it’s just that they receive no encouragement to do so. It’s sort of a vicious circle: The homosexual lifestyle is debauched only because they don’t have the ability to marry, which may curb their lifestyle (much the same way it does with some of the wildest straight singles); yet they shouldn’t have the option to marry, because their lifestyle is such that it is the antithesis of heterosexual married life. Somewhere the circle must be broken.
The other thought that goes part and parcel with the theory of same-sex marriage undermining traditional marriage is that of child rearing, and the family unit in general. It is not uncommon to hear that one reason behind the existence of marriage is for procreation, and that requires two people of opposite sexes. Therefore, same-sex married couples should not be because they don’t possess the abilities for procreation within their family unit. An obvious counter is that heterosexuals who aren’t able to give birth are not denied marriage so why are homosexuals? Beyond this counter however (which doesn’t necessarily prove that homosexuals have the ability to raise children, just that there are heterosexuals who can’t), there’s the scientific advancements that allow for artificial insemination, and the old-fashioned method of adoption. Both of these methods yield children, whether it’s the creation of children in the former, or the opportunity of a family unit in the latter. While I don’t think that anyone is in denial as to whether same-sex couples have the ability to obtain children, whether they should is another bugbear for the opponents. Many believe that a homosexual relationship is not a stable enough family unit for the development of mentally sound children. As Sullivan says: “The distinction between “families” and “homosexuals” is, to begin with, empirically false ”. The ability to raise mentally healthy children is no further out of the reach of same-sex couples than it is for heterosexual couples. For instance, a loving couple is a loving couple, no matter what sex they are; and for a child to be surrounded by that loving image can only be good. The environment for a child’s development is the most important part of his/her upbringing, and so we should not be asking whether the parents are of the same sex or not, but whether they are good parents with good parenting methods or not. As Andrew Sullivan says at the end of his essay “It’s perfectly possible to combine a celebration of the traditional family with the celebration of a stable homosexual relationship .”
The major contention in the debate between whether homosexual couples should have the right to marry is that the opponents of the idea propose that it may undermine the traditional notion of marriage. This undermining has to do with the thought that homosexuals somehow lack the ability, or talent, to handle something like marriage. The opponents argue that homosexuals flaunt their debauched lifestyle in the face of marriage. This has been refuted, however, by saying that marriage should help to ‘mellow-out’ those debauched characteristics (if indeed they do exist) by giving a structure and encouragement to monogamous, institutionally recognized relations. Another argument against same-sex marriage comes from the age-old interpretation of marriage, and that is: procreation. But even that’s not wholly outside of the abilities of a same-sex couple. Adoption, and artificial insemination make it so that same-sex couples can raise a child as well. What it all comes down to is that homosexuals in general possess no fewer abilities, skills, or desires to handle a marriage than heterosexuals do. If all these notions are proven false, then why do people not give up the fight and just allow same-sex marriage? Why aren’t we seeing sitcoms starring homosexual couples? Why is this essay being written? Is it that the opponents of same-sex marriages are too stubborn in the face of these fallacies? Or is it that there’s another underlying notion? There are other arguments out there that range from religious-based condemnations, to slippery-slope analogies . Is there a common ground for all these concerns? Is it a fear of homosexuality, or a fear that the meddling with the already shaky institution of marriage will cause its collapse? The answers to these questions aren’t forthcoming, and are topics for another discussion; but they are things to think about nonetheless, for when you’re dealing with the liberties of human beings a little thought goes a long way.
The debate surrounding Same-Sex Marriages is a contentious one. It has opinions and justifications running the gamut from: It goes against civil liberties, to: it goes against the natural order of things . Yet within all the rhetoric that gets tossed around back and forth on both sides there is a fundamental statement that is made by those who are opposed to these types of unions. This statement is that Same-Sex Marriage undermines the traditional heterosexual marriage, either through a perversion of the purpose of marriage (that is, to raise a family), or because it flaunts homosexual culture (a culture believed to be debauched) in the face of traditional, heterosexual, marriage. I believe this ‘undermining notion’ to be false, as it seems to imply that marriage is too much for, or out of the realm of control of, homosexual couples; and that is simply not the case. Both the rearing of children, and the management of an ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship are wholly within the abilities of homosexual couples.
First off, what do I mean by ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship? An ‘emotionally traditional’ relationship is one in which two people can love each other and form a monogamous bond based upon trust; responsibility; and the aforementioned, love. This is in response to the claim by those against same-sex marriages that homosexual couples flaunt homosexual culture in the face of heterosexual marriage. How the opponents to same-sex marriage believe this ‘flaunting’ is achieved is that homosexual couples will bring into a marriage certain characteristics of their homosexual life which are perceived as debauched. Andrew Sullivan describes these perceived characteristics in his essay entitled: ‘The Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage’ as: “fleeting emotional commitments; promiscuous sex; disease; social ostracism; and the flaunting of standards of public decency, and self-restraint .” These characteristics do indeed seem detrimental to the family unit, as they often involve a rejection of responsibility, or are causes of woe. Lets assume for the sake of argument that these are, indeed, characteristics of homosexual lifestyle. The question then becomes: Would the welcoming into the realm of marriage lay these characteristics to waste? Sullivan seems to think so. “There are very few social incentives of the kind conservatives like for homosexuals not to be depraved: … no institution to encourage fidelity or monogamy, precious little religious or moral outreach to guide homosexuals into more virtuous living ” [italics his]. An institution such as marriage might be just the thing to encourage a more responsible, less woe-stricken, homosexual life. In other words, if this debauched life is what homosexuals are living in now, free from the union of marriage, won’t a union of marriage be just the right solution? Certainly those debauched characteristics are no more a part of being a homosexual, than the same characteristics are a part of being a wild (heterosexual) bachelor; who can eventually be tamed and settle down into a nice marriage. The ability to adopt the same characteristics of a relationship are no more foreign to homosexuals than they are to heterosexuals, it’s just that they receive no encouragement to do so. It’s sort of a vicious circle: The homosexual lifestyle is debauched only because they don’t have the ability to marry, which may curb their lifestyle (much the same way it does with some of the wildest straight singles); yet they shouldn’t have the option to marry, because their lifestyle is such that it is the antithesis of heterosexual married life. Somewhere the circle must be broken.
The other thought that goes part and parcel with the theory of same-sex marriage undermining traditional marriage is that of child rearing, and the family unit in general. It is not uncommon to hear that one reason behind the existence of marriage is for procreation, and that requires two people of opposite sexes. Therefore, same-sex married couples should not be because they don’t possess the abilities for procreation within their family unit. An obvious counter is that heterosexuals who aren’t able to give birth are not denied marriage so why are homosexuals? Beyond this counter however (which doesn’t necessarily prove that homosexuals have the ability to raise children, just that there are heterosexuals who can’t), there’s the scientific advancements that allow for artificial insemination, and the old-fashioned method of adoption. Both of these methods yield children, whether it’s the creation of children in the former, or the opportunity of a family unit in the latter. While I don’t think that anyone is in denial as to whether same-sex couples have the ability to obtain children, whether they should is another bugbear for the opponents. Many believe that a homosexual relationship is not a stable enough family unit for the development of mentally sound children. As Sullivan says: “The distinction between “families” and “homosexuals” is, to begin with, empirically false ”. The ability to raise mentally healthy children is no further out of the reach of same-sex couples than it is for heterosexual couples. For instance, a loving couple is a loving couple, no matter what sex they are; and for a child to be surrounded by that loving image can only be good. The environment for a child’s development is the most important part of his/her upbringing, and so we should not be asking whether the parents are of the same sex or not, but whether they are good parents with good parenting methods or not. As Andrew Sullivan says at the end of his essay “It’s perfectly possible to combine a celebration of the traditional family with the celebration of a stable homosexual relationship .”
The major contention in the debate between whether homosexual couples should have the right to marry is that the opponents of the idea propose that it may undermine the traditional notion of marriage. This undermining has to do with the thought that homosexuals somehow lack the ability, or talent, to handle something like marriage. The opponents argue that homosexuals flaunt their debauched lifestyle in the face of marriage. This has been refuted, however, by saying that marriage should help to ‘mellow-out’ those debauched characteristics (if indeed they do exist) by giving a structure and encouragement to monogamous, institutionally recognized relations. Another argument against same-sex marriage comes from the age-old interpretation of marriage, and that is: procreation. But even that’s not wholly outside of the abilities of a same-sex couple. Adoption, and artificial insemination make it so that same-sex couples can raise a child as well. What it all comes down to is that homosexuals in general possess no fewer abilities, skills, or desires to handle a marriage than heterosexuals do. If all these notions are proven false, then why do people not give up the fight and just allow same-sex marriage? Why aren’t we seeing sitcoms starring homosexual couples? Why is this essay being written? Is it that the opponents of same-sex marriages are too stubborn in the face of these fallacies? Or is it that there’s another underlying notion? There are other arguments out there that range from religious-based condemnations, to slippery-slope analogies . Is there a common ground for all these concerns? Is it a fear of homosexuality, or a fear that the meddling with the already shaky institution of marriage will cause its collapse? The answers to these questions aren’t forthcoming, and are topics for another discussion; but they are things to think about nonetheless, for when you’re dealing with the liberties of human beings a little thought goes a long way.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Simone de Beauvoir: Existentialate THIS!
In her book The Second Sex Simone de Beauvoir discusses (among other things) how the plight of the woman got to be where it is today; that is: as a second class citizen, a slave-class to males. In discussing this, she brings up the notion of the Self and the Other, and how that relates to the relationship between men and women. Women are categorized as the other, naturally because of their social standing when compared to the Self (the dominant class, in this case males). The Self perceives women as the other because the Self gets to make the rules, and set the social standards. Simply put, if you’re not part of the powerful Self you’re the Other. De Beauvoir’s questioning lies in how this Self/Other, Male/Female relationship came to be.
When looking at an oppressed people, it is often helpful to look at other groups of oppressed people (in de Beauvoir’s case she looked at Black People, Jews, the Proletariat and to a lesser extent, Native Americans). What de Beauvoir found was that in their struggle for recognition as valuable human beings there was a sense of community, and camaraderie; they were linked by a common culture, or language, or past. Women (in general) don’t have that past or sense of culture, or at least don’t have that to the same degree. Simone de Beauvoir suggests that this sense of camaraderie springs from the fact that all these oppressed groups had memory of a time in which they were free, and could always draw upon that, and have the hope for a return to those days fuel their struggles. Women, she says, do not have those memories because they were always oppressed, and marginalized. Simone de Beauvoir says: “They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat.” De Beauvoir suggests that when a Black person, or a Jewish person wants to feel solidarity to something they can feel solidarity to another Black person, or Jewish person; while a white woman will feel solidarity to a while man, and a bourgeois female will feel solidarity to a bourgeois male. It is this lack of history, and culture; and lack of recognition between their fellow women that has held the goals of a woman’s equal recognition back.
My question is this: Is de Beauvoir right in saying that a lack of a definable past in woman’s history is keeping them back from their goals at recognition from the Self? Her comparisons to the various groups she mentioned (Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Proletariat) can be used in support against her claims as well. Sure these groups have received recognition from the Self but this is on paper only. While men may recognize himself in a Black male, or Jewish male, they are still held in lower regard by the Self. This is similar to the case of women, where on paper they are already regarded as equal and valuable citizens (I should mention that by ‘on paper’ I mean in the written word of law. For example, there’s nothing that says a Black person, or Jew, or a woman can’t be the leader of a country, or work the same job as a white-male.), yet in practice this ‘equal-regard’ is another story. Also, I feel that lumping in Black, Jewish, Proletariat, and Native American males in with middle-to-upper-class white-males and labeling them the same group is fallacious. Social practices are more complex, and don’t have the capacities just yet to fully welcome all men as equal.
When looking at an oppressed people, it is often helpful to look at other groups of oppressed people (in de Beauvoir’s case she looked at Black People, Jews, the Proletariat and to a lesser extent, Native Americans). What de Beauvoir found was that in their struggle for recognition as valuable human beings there was a sense of community, and camaraderie; they were linked by a common culture, or language, or past. Women (in general) don’t have that past or sense of culture, or at least don’t have that to the same degree. Simone de Beauvoir suggests that this sense of camaraderie springs from the fact that all these oppressed groups had memory of a time in which they were free, and could always draw upon that, and have the hope for a return to those days fuel their struggles. Women, she says, do not have those memories because they were always oppressed, and marginalized. Simone de Beauvoir says: “They [women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat.” De Beauvoir suggests that when a Black person, or a Jewish person wants to feel solidarity to something they can feel solidarity to another Black person, or Jewish person; while a white woman will feel solidarity to a while man, and a bourgeois female will feel solidarity to a bourgeois male. It is this lack of history, and culture; and lack of recognition between their fellow women that has held the goals of a woman’s equal recognition back.
My question is this: Is de Beauvoir right in saying that a lack of a definable past in woman’s history is keeping them back from their goals at recognition from the Self? Her comparisons to the various groups she mentioned (Blacks, Jews, Native Americans, Proletariat) can be used in support against her claims as well. Sure these groups have received recognition from the Self but this is on paper only. While men may recognize himself in a Black male, or Jewish male, they are still held in lower regard by the Self. This is similar to the case of women, where on paper they are already regarded as equal and valuable citizens (I should mention that by ‘on paper’ I mean in the written word of law. For example, there’s nothing that says a Black person, or Jew, or a woman can’t be the leader of a country, or work the same job as a white-male.), yet in practice this ‘equal-regard’ is another story. Also, I feel that lumping in Black, Jewish, Proletariat, and Native American males in with middle-to-upper-class white-males and labeling them the same group is fallacious. Social practices are more complex, and don’t have the capacities just yet to fully welcome all men as equal.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
I KANT believe he said that!
Kant’s authoritarian views on sexuality are essentially that sex involves the objectification of one by the other, and that this is immoral. This comes from the carnal lust that one feels for another, that removes that lust-object’s humanity, and renders them something akin to a blow-up doll. However, even Kant could see that sex is necessary for the continued existence of humanity so in order to alleviate some of the moral ‘wrongness’ of it all, he suggested that marriage act as a clause. In marrying someone you give yourself to that person in exchange for that person giving themselves to you, and in doing so become one. This should negate the disregard of one person’s humanity by the other (I guess it then becomes an objectification of your own humanity (in a sense), and that is, apparently, alright). My question, then, is why doesn’t something less formal than marriage (such as a pledge of love for one another) suffice in Kant’s book? Why must institutions recognition of a union be essential?
I don’t really have an answer in my head for my hypothetical question to Kant, but what I would like to point out is a startling comparison to what Foucault was talking about in his ‘A History of Sexuality’. Foucault writes about not a repression of sexuality but a proliferation of sexuality through an institution’s control and co-opting of sexuality. It seems as though Kant takes the morality out of the control of the couple, and instead puts it in the hands of an institution; thereby involving the institution in the sexual lives people. This allows the institution (let’s imply that the institutions involved in marriage are the government, and the whatever church is affiliated with the marriage, should it be a religious one) to set boundaries, and norms, that will affect certain aspects of the union. Will this then give the institution(s) allowance to change aspects of the marriage contract at a whim (not even cell phone companies are allowed to do this)? I’d think so.
In short, I believe that a less-formal commitment than marriage should suffice to overcome Kant’s moral bugbears of sexuality (if there are any at all). It could just as easily involve the combination of two persons into one, all the while keeping your sexuality in your hands, not in the hands of shadowy institutions.
I don’t really have an answer in my head for my hypothetical question to Kant, but what I would like to point out is a startling comparison to what Foucault was talking about in his ‘A History of Sexuality’. Foucault writes about not a repression of sexuality but a proliferation of sexuality through an institution’s control and co-opting of sexuality. It seems as though Kant takes the morality out of the control of the couple, and instead puts it in the hands of an institution; thereby involving the institution in the sexual lives people. This allows the institution (let’s imply that the institutions involved in marriage are the government, and the whatever church is affiliated with the marriage, should it be a religious one) to set boundaries, and norms, that will affect certain aspects of the union. Will this then give the institution(s) allowance to change aspects of the marriage contract at a whim (not even cell phone companies are allowed to do this)? I’d think so.
In short, I believe that a less-formal commitment than marriage should suffice to overcome Kant’s moral bugbears of sexuality (if there are any at all). It could just as easily involve the combination of two persons into one, all the while keeping your sexuality in your hands, not in the hands of shadowy institutions.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Probably the only time you'll see Foucalt and David Suzuki together in writing.
Foucault’s theory of the institutionalization of sex lends itself to the thought that the institutions control the taboos of sex as well. One such case of the medical community taking advantage of the paranoia of the judiciary (in terms of sex) was detailed in Foucault’s The History of Sexuality (on pages 31-32 (49-50 of the numbered pages)). In it, Foucault tells the story of a village man-child who would receive sexual favors from the young girls in the village, as he had seen countless other village urchins do before him. After being pointed out to the authorities by the girls’ parents he was whisked away to a medical asylum where he was studied (in a very draconic way) in order to determine what motivated such a man. They even took measurements of facial structures and brainpans as if they would yield the secrets as to why he resorted to such hedonism (“Of course. His low-hanging brow, and pineapple shaped head clearly make this miscreant stand out as a defiler, and a deviant!”).
This act of locking a man up in a hospital for the rest of his life only proliferated the discourses on sexuality, after all the doctors who studied the poor man published their findings. This is in line with Foucault’s claims of institutions taking control of sexuality. By publishing these superstitious and biased findings they helped mold sexuality into how they think the common person should see it: as a danger that must be controlled within oneself, lest you become a slave to your own compulsions. Without having read any of the findings I can only assume what they might have stirred up in the mainstream western world: a paranoia of sexual predators lurking within ones own village; a further proliferation of the thought of sex, as disturbing, and rigid; the possibilities are almost endless.
David Suzuki once wrote an essay on how our society’s perception of what is ‘dirty’ and how we inform our children of such was preventing our society’s enjoyment of nature. The common vocal concern of parents in regards to children is an aversion to the child playing with dirt, or soil, when in reality the soil is relatively clean, and harmless. This thought gets ingrained in the child’s head that all of nature is hazardous, or filthy, and must be avoided thus creating an overly sterile society. I imagine the same thing happened/is happening with sexuality through these various institutions, and their disdain for us ‘playing in the dirt’.
This act of locking a man up in a hospital for the rest of his life only proliferated the discourses on sexuality, after all the doctors who studied the poor man published their findings. This is in line with Foucault’s claims of institutions taking control of sexuality. By publishing these superstitious and biased findings they helped mold sexuality into how they think the common person should see it: as a danger that must be controlled within oneself, lest you become a slave to your own compulsions. Without having read any of the findings I can only assume what they might have stirred up in the mainstream western world: a paranoia of sexual predators lurking within ones own village; a further proliferation of the thought of sex, as disturbing, and rigid; the possibilities are almost endless.
David Suzuki once wrote an essay on how our society’s perception of what is ‘dirty’ and how we inform our children of such was preventing our society’s enjoyment of nature. The common vocal concern of parents in regards to children is an aversion to the child playing with dirt, or soil, when in reality the soil is relatively clean, and harmless. This thought gets ingrained in the child’s head that all of nature is hazardous, or filthy, and must be avoided thus creating an overly sterile society. I imagine the same thing happened/is happening with sexuality through these various institutions, and their disdain for us ‘playing in the dirt’.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Issues with my mother... I mean Freud. Freud!
In Sigmund Freud’s work, Sexuality and the Psychology of Love he gives his theory for homosexuality in women as a more convoluted form of the Oedipus Complex. From what I can gather there are two main ways (according to Freud) that a woman can become a homosexual: One is through penis envy; and the other comes from the girl “retiring in favor of” leaving men to her mother. I have a hard time believing either of these, though if I had to choose the most plausible I would have to choose the penis envy one (but even that one’s a stretch for me). I will look at both cases somewhat in depth and explain my disbelief afterwards.
Penis envy, it’s exactly what you think it means. According to Freud, penis envy occurs when a young girl first sees a male naked and notices that he has a penis and she does not, this is a traumatic experience for the girl as it makes her feel as though she’s lacking in something. This can then go one of three ways, she can transfer her desire for a penis into an attraction for men, by way of taking her father as a love object and trying to find a man like him; she can renounce sexuality altogether; or she can develop a desire to obtain this penis by taking on the characteristics of being a man, thus becoming a homosexual woman. Freud doesn’t exactly say what causes a woman to choose one of these paths, but they eventually all do, as they seem to cover all the bases. My problem is that this is a very male-centric viewpoint being taken. What’s to say that the girl will see a naked boy and jump to the conclusion that he is her superior? It was brought up by one of the people in my group that the boy does not suffer from ‘breast envy’ when being breastfed, so why should the girl feel penis envy?
The second of Freud’s theories is a bit more complicated to explain, but no less hard to swallow. The little girl goes through a female Oedipus Complex transferring her object of love from her mother to her father, whom she realizes desires to have a male child. The girl then desires to give her father the child but for whatever reason, she comes to the realization that this cannot happen (this is either due to the superego’s (the part of the brain that deals with social norms) awareness in the girls mind, or the fact that her mother has given birth, and not her). So, as a form of disappointment, the girl gives up taking men for her love-object, as she realizes that she cannot compete with her mother. As if that wasn’t strange enough, Freud then claims that the girl becomes a male and goes through a second Oedipal Complex, this time from the perspective of the boy (hating his father and loving his mother), thus she has a sort of androgynous quality about her. This theory seems very convoluted, and seems like Freud had a fairly solid theory with the Oedipal Complex but found no obvious way for it to apply to women. I dare say that he worked backwards with the Oedipal Complex and tried to accommodate it for women. Accommodation does not necessarily render an argument invalid, but Freud’s seems forced.
Freud had some very revolutionary ideas and the simple fact that he was trying to unravel sexuality in his time is worthy of accolade in itself. I am, by no means, claiming that I beat Freud by refuting his claims because when it comes down to it, Freud was a doctor, and a founder of an acclaimed school of psychology, and my claim to fame is being an avid fan of Dune. I do, however, have some qualms about his theories and their applications.
Penis envy, it’s exactly what you think it means. According to Freud, penis envy occurs when a young girl first sees a male naked and notices that he has a penis and she does not, this is a traumatic experience for the girl as it makes her feel as though she’s lacking in something. This can then go one of three ways, she can transfer her desire for a penis into an attraction for men, by way of taking her father as a love object and trying to find a man like him; she can renounce sexuality altogether; or she can develop a desire to obtain this penis by taking on the characteristics of being a man, thus becoming a homosexual woman. Freud doesn’t exactly say what causes a woman to choose one of these paths, but they eventually all do, as they seem to cover all the bases. My problem is that this is a very male-centric viewpoint being taken. What’s to say that the girl will see a naked boy and jump to the conclusion that he is her superior? It was brought up by one of the people in my group that the boy does not suffer from ‘breast envy’ when being breastfed, so why should the girl feel penis envy?
The second of Freud’s theories is a bit more complicated to explain, but no less hard to swallow. The little girl goes through a female Oedipus Complex transferring her object of love from her mother to her father, whom she realizes desires to have a male child. The girl then desires to give her father the child but for whatever reason, she comes to the realization that this cannot happen (this is either due to the superego’s (the part of the brain that deals with social norms) awareness in the girls mind, or the fact that her mother has given birth, and not her). So, as a form of disappointment, the girl gives up taking men for her love-object, as she realizes that she cannot compete with her mother. As if that wasn’t strange enough, Freud then claims that the girl becomes a male and goes through a second Oedipal Complex, this time from the perspective of the boy (hating his father and loving his mother), thus she has a sort of androgynous quality about her. This theory seems very convoluted, and seems like Freud had a fairly solid theory with the Oedipal Complex but found no obvious way for it to apply to women. I dare say that he worked backwards with the Oedipal Complex and tried to accommodate it for women. Accommodation does not necessarily render an argument invalid, but Freud’s seems forced.
Freud had some very revolutionary ideas and the simple fact that he was trying to unravel sexuality in his time is worthy of accolade in itself. I am, by no means, claiming that I beat Freud by refuting his claims because when it comes down to it, Freud was a doctor, and a founder of an acclaimed school of psychology, and my claim to fame is being an avid fan of Dune. I do, however, have some qualms about his theories and their applications.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
That's what she said!
Hello!
Welcome to my Philosophy 334: Sex, Gender, and Philosophy, blog. This blog will mainly be read by myself, and my professor for the class (Christina Hendricks), but some of the people who read some of the other blogs that I've created (I like to call my other blogs: the illegitimate children of my mind) may read some of this too; thus I extend the welcome to everyone (that and I like to pretend I'm talking to a million people when I type. I even read aloud in my 'old-time radio' voice).
What can you expect on this blog? Thrills! Chills! 250 word written responses to topics covered in my Philosophy class! And maybe celebrity spottings. "But Carmin," your shrill voices ask. "What does one study in a Sex, Gender, and Philosophy class?" Well, if you're new to the English language you're forgiven, but if you are able to hear yourselves talk you would have answered your own question. However, in my infinite generosity, I'll tell you.
Discourses on the roles of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender by Philosophers, Intellectuals, and all-round smart guys like Sigmund "Oedipus Rex" Freud, Michel "Don't touch my Panopticon" Foucault, and Immanuel "No, that wasn't me, that was Nietzsche" Kant to name a few. We'll also talk about what love is, Gay Marriage, Sex Roles in the Ideal Society, and MORALS!
So strap yourselves in, for once I start talking about what I think about Sex, and Gender, it only goes downhill...
-Carmin
Welcome to my Philosophy 334: Sex, Gender, and Philosophy, blog. This blog will mainly be read by myself, and my professor for the class (Christina Hendricks), but some of the people who read some of the other blogs that I've created (I like to call my other blogs: the illegitimate children of my mind) may read some of this too; thus I extend the welcome to everyone (that and I like to pretend I'm talking to a million people when I type. I even read aloud in my 'old-time radio' voice).
What can you expect on this blog? Thrills! Chills! 250 word written responses to topics covered in my Philosophy class! And maybe celebrity spottings. "But Carmin," your shrill voices ask. "What does one study in a Sex, Gender, and Philosophy class?" Well, if you're new to the English language you're forgiven, but if you are able to hear yourselves talk you would have answered your own question. However, in my infinite generosity, I'll tell you.
Discourses on the roles of Sex, Sexuality, and Gender by Philosophers, Intellectuals, and all-round smart guys like Sigmund "Oedipus Rex" Freud, Michel "Don't touch my Panopticon" Foucault, and Immanuel "No, that wasn't me, that was Nietzsche" Kant to name a few. We'll also talk about what love is, Gay Marriage, Sex Roles in the Ideal Society, and MORALS!
So strap yourselves in, for once I start talking about what I think about Sex, and Gender, it only goes downhill...
-Carmin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
