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, 11 April 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, 9 April 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)