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.
Showing posts with label UBCPHIL334. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UBCPHIL334. Show all posts
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.
Thursday, 15 February 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, 14 February 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, 12 February 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)