Final Post: essay on the construction of sex

Deconstructing the essentialism of the sexed body:
an examination of sex determination through gendering language

Biologically, the sexed body is a continuation of the socially constructed gender binary. The sex of a person is defined as their biological maleness and femaleness, with subcategories such as, genetic sex (referring to chromosomal composition) and anatomical sex (physical attributes defined as female or male, examples being the vulva or penis). The gender of a person is described as the psychological and socio-cultural characteristics associated with the sex (Crooks, 2008, 46). The sex of person becomes a fixed, naturalized characteristic, while gender is created by social normative patterns that form a person’s identity. However, theorist Judith Butler (2006) argues that our understanding of the sexed body has been conceptualized and confined by our language, placing the body into a rigid gender binary. Language is a tool used by people to express their understanding of the world by articulating their repetitive actions and thoughts, thus, creating a script that determines what is socially acceptable. Therefore, what we assume to be essential is not free from the construction of language. This constructed understanding of reality has placed the essentialized sexed body within a constrictive gender binary and it becomes harder to deconstruct because of the naturalized quality people have placed on the study of Biology. To examine the sexed body as a social phenomenon, we must first need to accept that everything we hold to be concrete has been confined by our language and a need to create categories to organize our world; consequently, the sexed body is no more a ‘reality’ than our ‘gendered body’.

Biology has always been regarded as ‘more real’ than the phenomena explained by the Social sciences. Thus, the biological-sexed body is assumed to be fixed and void of social influence. However, the scientific language used to describe what is assumed to be innate in the sexes is influenced by how we conceive gender roles. Because of this conception of ‘reality’, characteristics associated with the sexes, such as the “mothering instinct” or the “aggressive male” is falsely naturalized through Biology. Butler (2006) upsets our understanding of Biology by claiming that the discipline is a human construction that does not transcend our genderized language. In fact, many biologists recognize the fluidity of sex and gender patterns within the animal population.

Mans Andersson (2006) wrote an article discussing the diversity of sex in a variety of animal species. There were examples provided of inner-sexed species (an animal that procreates with itself), anatomical sex determination by environmental factors (such as temperature in determining the sex of some amphibians), and characteristics that have been defined as essentially male qualities practiced or predominantly found in female species. These phenomena were witnessed by Charles Darwin and integrated into his understanding of evolution and the adaptability of species in changing environments. Thus, it is curious that Darwin’s theory of evolution has been used to suggest a false reality that males and females are inherently different and with those differences, essentialist claims are made about sexed behaviors. Common sexed behaviors associated with males are aggression, dominance, and frequent mating with multiple females in order to ensure the transmission of their genes to the next generation. Andersson uses examples of several bird species in which these assumed male traits are found in the females, such as patterns of aggression and sex selection. There are also examples of the female bird moving from the passive mating role to the aggressive mating role, in that she seeks out several mates and chooses what sperm will fertilize her eggs (2006, 14). There are several species that have transcended the sex binary humans have created, so why do we not hear about these animals?

Andersson (2006) indicates that species observed to have this gender-role reversal are understudied and usually not given much attention in mainstream science. Humans study the animal kingdom through the sex binary we have established for understanding our lives. Thus, we try to fit animals within this framework of understanding, and when they do not fit, we either ignore them or try to bend the reality of the species behavior to fit within the sex-specific behaviors established in the sex binary. The most telling example of this is when Andersson refers to John Marzuluff and Russ Baldo’s study of dominance hierarchies within the bird species called Pineon Jay. They claimed that the female’s aggression was connected to hormonal fluctuation, similar to women experiencing pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS). Later, this conclusion was dismissed, as scientists observed that female Pineon Jays choose their mates and aggression is displayed in ensuring the best mate selection (2006, 15). It is evident that gender normative stereotypes are indirectly applied in studying other animals and interfere with how species are actually living.

Animal Planet is a television station devoted solely to exploring the natural world and educating people about a vast array of species and environments. However, when I thought about most of the shows I have watched, I discovered that many of the animals discussed fit our definitions of sex. Heteronormative language is used to describe mating practices. The male is usually the pursuer and the female flees from the males, until she is too weak to fend off the strongest male’s advances and ultimately ‘succumbs to his will’. But why don’t we hear about the birds that store up several males sperm, and pick the best batch to fertilize their eggs, and are even in control of the sex of their offspring? It is because these animals ‘trouble’ our definition of male and female roles and what we believe to be essentially ‘female’ and ‘male behaviors.

As stated previously, the study of Biology is assumed to be closer to ‘reality’ than cultural constructions but it is not free from the language that has indoctrinated the heteronormative sex binary. As a science student, I have learned about many plants and animal species that deviate from the assumed sex binary, but this information does not infuse into the greater society. People want to hear about animals they can relate to and animals that upset our understanding of sex and gender-roles become hard to comprehend and are placed in the category of deviants. In reality the ‘deviants category’ is rather large, a population that diversifies and complexifies our understanding of sex. We must begin to think of ways to normalize people that deviate from the language used to describe the sexed body. A way to begin breaking-down this constrictive language is to educate the general public about the sex diversity of animals and plants. Perhaps this would begin to validate the experiences of people that do not fit within the sex binary. For what is more natural than nature?

Before we can deconstruct the language that influences and legitimizes a binary approach to the sexed body, we need to understand how this language was created and if it can be subverted. Butler (2006) analyzes the Body Politics Theory of Julia Kristeva. Kristeva emphasizes two important aspects of genderized language, the Symbolic and the semiotic. The Symbolic is defined as “the paternal law that structures all language signification” (2006, 107), the idea that our language inherently is confined by language that is phalliocentric. The second term is semiotic, which is generally defined as the construction of reality through symbolic meaning. Kristeva uses Lactanian’s narrative, which assumes that cultural meaning, “requires the repression of the primary relationship to the maternal body” (2006,108). Poetic language is defined as an attempt to reclaim the maternal body within the framework of language. It is a linguistic device that fractures and multiplies meaning. Kristeva complexifies the Lacatian idea of the suppression of the maternal body by claiming this phenomena transcends cultural construction. She claims that the maternal body is “bearing a set of meanings that is prior to culture itself” (2006, 109). Kristeva looks for ways to transcend the Symbolic through alternative forms of language, the poetic is a way in which the Symbolic can be broken down.

Butler (2006) is most critical of Kristeva’s attention to subversion of the maternal body and questions her argument of removing the maternal body from the construction of society. Can we truly transcend this linguistic framework, or must we be aware of its oppressive qualities and disrupt or trouble the gender binary created by language? Butler suggests that deconstructing the construction of the maternal body’s dependency on heterogeneity discourse is more important than transcending the structure. She uses Kristeva’s work to illuminate new claims that Kristeva overlooks, such as the mandate of maternity “as a compulsory defense against libidinal chaos” (2006, 117). She discusses this aspect through a discussion of homosexuality and how it deviates from the maternal symbol in lesbianism. A lesbian must go through a series of displacements in order to avoid the maternal drives. An internalized ‘heteronormalcy’ is constructed through biological justification and the lesbian woman is the divergent, termed to be the “psychotic”.
The ultimate error of Kristeva’s theory according to Butler (2006) is subversion of the connection between culture and this maternal being. She states:
The law that is said to repress the semeiotic may well be the governing principle of the semiotic itself, with the result that what passes as “maternal instinct” may well be a culturally constructed desire which is interpreted through naturalistic vocabulary. And if that desire is constructed according to a law of kinship which requires the heterosexual production and reproduction of desire, then the vocabulary of naturalistic affect effectively render that “paternal law” invisible. (2006, 123)
The problem lies in normative, naturalized language being used to essentialize socially constructed realities of the sexed body. Butler discusses the importance of deconstructing and troubling the foundations of this language.

Butler (2006) also examines Michel Foucault’s genealogical critique of the gender binary that fails to support the divergence from rigid sex categories. According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no inherent “sex” and a failure to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. He believes it is necessary to deconstruct the ‘sexed body’ and understand the power dynamics of the binary. Foucault uses the case study of Herculine, a hermaphrodite (inner-sexed person) that was biologically said to be a girl but had secondary male sex characteristics and physical features, and ultimately choose a male identity later in life. Foucault focuses on the period of his/her life in which s/he had not yet become classified as a male by law. He claims this part of Herculine’s life to be “non-gendered”, meaning s/he is not forced to comply with normative male or female conventions, and thus, experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler refutes this point claiming that Herculine struggled a lot during his/her period of being non-gendered because s/he did not fit into a distinct category of the gender binary (2006, 128). Herculine’s case becomes an ultimate example of gender trouble because s/he upsets the gender/sex binary, and challenges the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

A discussion of the construction of sexed biological language is seen through Dr. David Page’s research where the lab tried to discover the biological factor that differentiated the sexes (Butler, 2006,145). The way in which the Y chromosome was discussed perpetuates the male dominant heterosexual discourse, in that the Y chromosome is inherently responsible of maleness and the absence of this, is femaleness. The language used in this study went as far as to reinforce the genderized roles of the active and passive in describing the chromosomal make-up of men and women, associating the Y chromosome as the active determinant of sex and the X chromosome as the passive or default determinant of sex (2006, 146). Again, cases of inner-sexed people trouble the language used in this research because their chromosomes do not always correspond to the physical characteristics we associate with being male or female. Butler continuously expresses concern with the gender binary that is informed by language construction because inner-sexed people and others that upset the biological-sex binary are seen as divergent and lacking of the proper characteristics assumed to be either inherently male or female features. In this respect, sex is not gender neutral or exclusive, as we are taught to believe. Butler claims that troubling the assumptions of nature are imperative in deconstructing the oppressive factors of the gender binary with the hope that all living beings that deviate from the sex binary will no longer be categorized as abnormal or deviant.

How can we begin to blur the lines that separate the sexes into two distinct categories? One way, is to emphasize the similarities anatomically and genetically between the sexed bodies. Our Sexuality (2008) is a wonderful tool to educate people in the process of sex determination. It is not until 6 weeks after conception that the anatomic structure of the fetus is differentiated through differing levels of hormone production, which are usually determined by the chromosomal DNA, of a XX chromosomes (containing information for female sex characteristics to develop) or the XY chromosomes (containing information for male sex characteristics to develop). However, there are varying levels of hormones and combinations of chromosomes that can cause the formation of ‘ambiguous’ anatomical features (Crooks, 2008, 49). While the book displays how similar the fetuses of both sexes are, some language used to differentiate between the sexes is still constrictive. For instance, the term ambiguous genitalia, is used when describing people with “atypical prenatal sex differentiation characteristics” (2008, 54).

The fact that people who possess atypical sex characteristics are termed ‘ambiguous’ or ‘abnormal’ because we cannot place them neatly in a male or female sex category is a harsh reality in our society. Why must people be forced within the constraints of the existing gender binary? I learned in my Human Sexuality class that about four percent of births in the United States last year were classified as possessing ‘ambiguous genitalia’. That is a high statistic, which I believe should become a validated understanding of sex and classified as a natural variation of sex. Unfortunately, most families immediately assign their child with ‘ambiguous genitalia’ to a sex at birth and this can lead to devastating consequences in the child’s future if they can not connect their gender identity with their chosen sex. Many parents of inner-sexed children fear that their child will not fit into a society that has organized the separation of the sexes, through public bathrooms, changing rooms, children’s’ activities, and the list continues. An individual struggles when they do not conform to societal institutions, such as gender. In theory it is much easier to say that the individual should transcend the sex binary by not conforming to gender normative patterns, however, in praxis this becomes very difficult because we do not have an extra-discursive language to discuss this action. We do not have a way to comprehend the subversion of an individual from the designated sex categories, and thus, the individual will suffer massive repercussions for not conforming to the gender identity of one sex.

It is challenging for me to trouble the assumed connection between innateness and the sexed body. A part of me yearns to essentialize my sex; there is something truly innate about me being a woman, something that is not informed by societal constructive language. Perhaps it becomes constructed once I try to verbalize the feeling of innateness because I must use a language of symbols that perpetuate the sex binary. But the way in which my body has been hardwired has to be free from gender assumptions. However, I do realize that the way in which we understand this process of hardwiring is explained through a constrictive language. I also realize that sex and gender are inextricably linked, and the reality of how we understand sex is through the process of sexing the body. Instead of being born with a sex, we have been assigned a sex. Sex dichotomist categories have designed to organize ‘like people’, and assign certain gender-roles to each specific category. Thus, the problem seems to stem from our obsession with categorizing the world we live in. But could we understand anything without some element of categorical organization?

Naturally, we process information by dividing like concepts and ideas into categories. We have to find a place for everything, so we can place our own experiences within in an understandable framework. The problem with this process is not that they exist but that these categories are too rigid. If some concept does not fit within a set of respective categories society has created to understand a specific issue, we classify it as deviant, abnormal, or atypical. It does not belong in our frame of reference and this reality has devastating consequences for individuals who do not fit within any category.
Society has been constructed to de-legitimize the experience of many people by creating only two distinct categories to understand the differences between the sexes. The expansion of these two categories is necessary in creating a more fluid and realistic understanding of the sexed body. I think it would be difficult to remove the action of sexing the body because we need to have a framework of understanding and organization. However, these categories need to be more flexible and inclusive, no one should be excluded from a legitimate category.

My purpose has been to demonstrate that everything we hold to be concrete has been confined by our language and we need to create an extra-discursive discourse to create more categories and less rigid existing categories that organize our understanding of the sexed body. However, it is important to remember that we cannot change the construction of our language over night, nor can we transcend the language. The first step is understanding that the issue is present and that we need to think of better ways to legitimize the sexed experiences of all people. In terms of the Third Wave movement, there are other realms of change that can happen more immediately. It is always quicker to change things within an existing system, rather than changing the system itself. I think one of the most beneficial things people can draw from this topic is awareness that everything we understand to be ‘reality’ in our society has been influenced and expressed through language, and this language has many elements of oppression and dichotomist categories. Again, it is easy to formulate and express theories about language constriction but there is a disconnect between theory and praxis. It is easier to work within the realm of understanding, and it is easy to essentialize the gender norms that have been so entrenched in our conceptualization of the world. It is my hope that people can become aware of their sexed body and that they can begin to trouble the binary expectations of what it means to be male or female. This is not an easy step and it does not irradiate the foundation of language; but it does challenge people to question this foundation and realize it does not have to define who we are as people.


References

Andersson, M. (2006). Gendering animals: representation, identification and the demise of simplicity. NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction. 3, 12-15.

Baur, K., Crooks, R. (2008). Our Sexuality. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Butler, J. (2006). Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.

Response to Zygmunt Bauman’s, Liquid Love (pg. 58-118)

Bauman continues to look at how our social framework and societal institutions inform our relationships of love. In the end of chapter 2, he begins to discuss his idea of ‘communitas’, a social arrangement that focuses on the community’s needs. A discussion of virtual connectedness and mobility is critiqued as a new age way in which relationships are governed. Again, the stress of commoditized love is emphasized in Bauman’s discussion of Gross National Product (GNP) being essential to the formation of intimate, fluid relationships. In chapter 3, the focus is on how it is difficult for the human to put the interest of others before their own. The human, like most animals, must put their individual survival above the rest. Bauman also criticizes Giddens’ model of the ‘pure relationship’ as establishing problems of trust and intimacy, aspects fostered in a fluid society. He ends the chapter by using the city as a model for the global, fluid, consumerist culture.

End Chapter 2: In and Out of the Toolbox of Sociality

In chapter 2, I was most interested in Bauman’s discussion of ‘virtual proximity’ and how it has changed the modern relationship within the realm of ‘physical proximity’. A new sense of connectedness has developed because physical proximity is no longer a criterion for remaining close to someone. The argument can also be flipped, in that physical closeness no longer signifies proximity. In a modern age, one can become intimate without the physical proximity. This phenomenon is exemplified through online dating and Internet relationships, in which the aspect of physical proximity no longer affects the sense of closeness a couple feels for each other. Bauman uses this argument to bring the reader back to his idea of fluid, consumerist love.

The GNP model expresses the governmental need to create products that will be consumed in order to attain fulfillment. Bauman discusses how this culture pulls the social bonds between people apart, fostering an individualistic strive for success and happiness. The idealized citizens that will foster this GNP culture are those void of social connection, but Bauman ultimately concludes these people to be fictional (69). He then discusses the need for a community model to emphasize social bonds, and in my belief, ultimately combat the GNP consumer obsessed culture. His conclusion is, “Human solidarity is the first casualty of the triumphs of the consumer market” (76). A fundamental form of this solidarity is the loving relationship that is forced into a fluidity framework. If the individual always comes before the group, Giddens’ vision of the ‘pure relationship’ can never be actualized. A relationship will never become stable because the market value of the relationship will constantly be rising and falling depending on the individual gain each person engaged in the relationship experiences.

Chapter 3: On the Difficulty of Loving Thy Neighbor

Bauman discusses the human struggle to ‘love thy neighbor’ over the best interest of the self. A discussion of survival and self-love develops, while these two concepts may run parallel to each other, self-love offers the option to refuse survival, if life is not living up to the standard set by the self. Bauman claims that self-love cannot exist apart from being loved, because self-hatred will breed if this does not occur. Survival on the other hand is described as more individualistic, instinctual, even if disconnected from others. These two aspects of self inform us on how we enter into loving relationships.

I was interested in Bauman’s critique of Giddens’ ‘pure relationship’. He focuses on the insecurity that results from a confluent love model because individuals are free to end the relationship when they are no longer being fulfilled. He expresses that this idea fosters distrust and instability. This is something we brought up when discussing Giddens’ model in class. However, Bauman fails to mention the element of emotional and physical reciprocity that develops in this egalitarian relationship. I think the model does not stress the fluidity of relationships (meaning one can leave at any moment) but the fact that one can leave if they are not feeling the reciprocal effects of the relationship. Of course this is complicated by the individual’s feelings on what the reciprocity should be defined as, and ultimately it may feel like one is leaving the other. However, I feel this is a much better option than the unconditional, devoted relationship that Kipnis critiques and finds fault in. Ultimately, Bauman fails to see this reciprocity and instead focuses on the dependency of the ‘pure relationship’ as binding the individual to an unstable relationship (90). I do not follow this logic because the ‘pure relationship’ is based off the idea of confluent love that is founded on the principle of reciprocity.

Bauman concludes this chapter by looking at the formation of similar sub-communities within the larger context of a city. All of his deconstructions of how human's create society and interact in society inform us on how we develop relationships. I think Bauman’s goal is to show us how our relationships mirror the larger, consumerist society. It is the public informing the private, and by looking at patterns of the larger culture, we can see why love has become fluid, rather than constant.

Response to Anthony Giddens’, The Transformation of Intimacy: Intro. and Chapters 1-4

Anthony Giddens wrote this text in order to examine the institution of sexuality and its’ implications for heterosexual relationships. Most of the text focuses on heterosexual patterns of love but he also acknowledges the importance of examining patterns of homosexual relationships. He draws on the genre of ‘self-help’, in hopes to reach a wide array of people, helping them to critically examine how the societal construction of romantic love has influenced the construction of intimate relationships. Sex (predominantly heterosexual sex) is analyzed through the historical examination of gender roles and how new roles (strong focus on women) are changing the formation of heterosexual relationships today. However, he also admits that patterns of power may appear to have changed but are still underlying factors in the continuation of female subjectification within heterosexual relationships.

Chapter 1:Everday Experiments, Relationships, Sexuality

This chapter focuses on the changing role of women within sexual relationships, as they begin to assume power and control over their sexuality and whom they share it with. Giddens emphasizes how the separation of reproductively and the female sexual experience have given women the opportunity to seek sexual pleasure without the burden of pregnancy. No longer is it a reality that men have free sexual range and experience multiple partners, while women experience one partner in the realm of marriage. Gibbens claims that, “Women no longer go along with male sexual dominance, and both sexes must deal with the implications of this phenomenon” (8). The examination of how both men and women respond to this change in sexual relationship patterns becomes the focus of this chapter. However, the role of masculinity is not thoroughly explored.

Chapter 2: Foucault on Sexuality

Gibbens utilizes Foucault’s, The History of Sexuality, to draw on and expand on his insights into how sexuality has been historically constructed. However, Gibbens believes Foucault’s conclusions to be flawed and ultimately hindered by his emphasis on power. Gibbens argues that Foucault’s discussion of ‘disciplinary power’ “produced ‘docile bodies controlled and regulated in their activities rather than able spontaneously to act on promptings of desire” (18). This introduces Connell’s discussion of the body reflexive and the importance of factoring in the body as ‘agent’ as well as ‘actor’. Foucault begins to view power as a ‘mobilizing agent’, not merely a limitation later on in his analysis. In this sense, power becomes the “instrument for the production of pleasure: it does not stand opposed to it” (18). Gibbens briefly discusses Foucault’s analysis of how sexuality was historically constructed, adding his own commentary on points of contention he views in Foucault’s hypothesis. One of Giddens' main criticisms is that Foucault puts too much emphasis on sexuality, at the expense of gender roles and does not connect the construction of sexuality to romantic notions of love. Romanized love and sexuality are inextricably linked in Gibbens’ opinion, and thus, both influence and are influenced by one and other.

Chapter 3: Romantic Love and Other Attachments

This next chapter attempts to show how romantic love is imperative to deconstruct in order to understand the construction of sexuality. He defines passionate love or ‘amour passion’ as “expressing a generic connection between love and sexual attachment” (37). This connection is Gibbens' main focus, as he examines how romantic love influences sexual desire and attachment. Again, he does a social historical analysis of the construction of romantic love and how genderized roles have been conditioned to respond to the phenomenon in different ways.

Chapter 4: Love, Commitment and the Pure Relationship

I was most intrigued with this chapter because my personal experiences with relationships were mirrored in Gibbens’ discussion of commitment. He examines virginity as being a loss for women and a gain for men. I think this is still a reality in our society today. I also see relationship patterns of bargaining, where the woman will offer sex for the exchange of commitment from her male partner. I think many issues of masculinity that we learned about through Connell’s text were apparent in this chapter, especially the emphasis on the man being the sexual expert and having more sexual experiences over that of the woman. This is the first chapter that Gibbens explicitly looks at the constraints of masculinity that cause a power imbalance within relationships. I think this is an element that was missing from his previous chapters. He focuses so much on how the role of women has changed in heterosexual relationships over time, he fails to show how men are changing as well. I feel like he focuses on men changing their attitudes in response to women’s changing roles. But do they have advocacy in this matter? How is the modern man escaping the established roles of masculinity in the realm of romantic relationships independently of women’s changing roles?

I was also interested in Gibbens’ discussion of women being focused on the future using the pronoun “we”, while men talk about the future using the pronoun “I”. This phenomenon filters into his discussion of women defining their independence through relational dependency, while men still focus on their dependency defined on their own terms. He ends with a discussion of ‘confluent love’ being the ‘modern’ form of love. This love focuses on the reciprocity of sexual pleasure between partners. It also assumes reciprocity within the realm of emotional giving and taking. This egalitarian love begins to meld the strict gender roles of dominance and submissiveness that have been emphasized in heterosexual relationships. I am hopeful that this is the direction relationships are starting to move in but I am also not naive of the fact that remnants of the historical notion of romantic love still influence and create an imbalance within heterosexual relationships today.

Natalie Angier’s article, "Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek The Keys to It." and "NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction

"Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek The Keys to It."

Natalie Angier discusses the topic of desire and studies that have been conducted to examine how men and women differ in response and understanding of their sexual desire. I was particularly interested in how sexual desire is assessed in men through recording periods of penile erection, but in women, it is difficult to find a comparative bodily action that solely signifies sexual arousal. First, I was upset at how these studies focused on the erection as the signifier of male arousal, and thus, sought to define female sexual arousal through a physical response that would be equivalent to the male erection. This perpetuates the system of desire being connected to the fallice. It emphasizes the idea that the woman must have a counterpart to the male erection to define her sexual desire.

Stephanie A. Sanders from the Kinsey Institute and Indiana University described asking women about if they thought the female equivalent to the male erection was genital lubrication. The majority of women responded with a resounding “no”, claiming that “’you can get wet when you’re not aroused, it changes with the menstrual cycle, it is not a meaningful measure’” (4).

A startling finding from Dr. Chivers of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health was that “women and men show divergent patterns of genital arousal while viewing material with sexual content” (4). He observed that most heterosexual males had a personal awareness of the connection between their physical and psychological arousal when viewing sexual content. However, many women displayed disconnect between their physical arousal and psychological arousal. Their bodies responded to the sexual images but they claimed not to enjoy the visually explicit material.

This is a phenomenon we have discussed in my Human Sexuality course. The question is, why does this disconnect exists? I am apt to believe that because of our culture, women are conditioned not to be in touch with their bodies sexually. Porn is also socially construed to be a form of female subordination, and thus, many women refuse to support the consumption of porn or if they do enjoy it, feel guilty and that they must hide this socially unacceptable practice. This is something the CAKE girls are fighting against and the book “Female Chauvinist Pigs” addresses, the acceptance of women into this raunch culture and the freedom to freely express their sexual desires. However, discussing this in my Human Sexuality class, the general consensus was that porn was a male activity, and women wanted nothing to do with it.

Dr. Chivers seems to have a different hypothesis; he states that women are not aware of this physical response to the explicit material. His theory is that women are in constant fear of being raped and it is the body’s natural defense mechanism to lubricate at “any hint of sex” to protect the reproductive tract. I am skeptical of this claim. If lubrication is the signifier of whether or not a woman is aroused, the studies discussed earlier have already proven that this is not a good indicator. Women experience lubrication in many instances outside the realm of sexual arousal. Also, in our Human Sexuality textbook, the device used to tract women’s arousal recorded their muscle contractions, not just their lubrication production. If we use Chivers' argument in this circumstance, why would women contract their muscles, which is defined as the first stages of arousal, if they are merely doing this as an evolutionary defense mechanism against rape? I really think there is something else at play besides the evolutionary protection of the reproductive tract.

While it is important to look at how women and men differ in their experience of desire, we need to remember that these studies focus on heterosexual people. Therefore, these studies do not enlighten us on all people’s experiences of desire. Also, as we have emphasized over and over again, desire too, is a part of a continuum in which men and women’s experiences overlap. This article fails to mention all the similar experiences of sexual desire that men and women feel, while they may manifest themselves in different ways, not all men are carnal aggressors and all women are not passive lovers. In many ways, this article reinforces the heteronormative roles of the aggressive male and the passive female.

"NIKK magasin: New Perceptions of Gender and Reproduction"

This was one of the most amazing magazines I have ever read. Every piece was extremely provocative and hours of discussion ensued on the airplane after reading each article. I will be discussing the article by Mans Andersson called, “Gendering Animals: Representation, identification and the demise of simplicity”. As an environmental chemistry student, this article particularly spoke to me and reemphasized the need to deconstruct the strict gender binary present in our society.

First, I was fascinated by all the species discussed that defy the sex binary of men and women. There were example of inner-sexed species, sex determined by outside environments such as temperature, and characteristics that have been defined as essentially male practices found to be female characteristics. Patterns of aggression and sex selection of mates are in reality a very common female trait in many species. Andersson also points out that many of the species observed to have this gender- role reversal, are understudied and usually not given much attention in the mainstream science.

This is where the genderizing of animals comes into play. Humans study the animal kingdom through the sex binary we have established for understanding our lives. Thus, we try to fit animals within this framework of understanding, and when they do not fit, we either ignore them or try to bend the reality of the species behavior to fit within the sex-specific behaviors established in the sex binary. The most telling example of this is when Andersson refers to John Marzuluff and Russ Baldo’s study of dominance hierarchies within the bird specie called Pineon Jay. They claimed that the female’s aggression was tided to hormonal fluctuation, similar to women experiencing PMS. Later, this conclusion was dismissed, as scientists observed that females were in charge of choosing their mate and aggression was displayed in ensuring the best mate selection (15).

I was fascinated by this idea that human’s gender normative stereotypes are indirectly applied in studying other animals. I began to think about Animal Planet specials, especially on mating, that use heteronormative language to describe the animals. The males are usually the pursuers and the female flees from the males, until she is too weak to fend off the strongest male’s advances and ultimately succumbs to his will, natural selection at its finest, the strongest male wins. But why don’t we hear about the birds that store up several males sperm, and pick the best batch to fertilize their eggs, and even control the sex of their offspring? Is it because these animals trouble our definition of male and female roles, do they trouble the biology of what we believe to be essentially “woman” and “man” behaviors. If biology is closer to truth then cultural construction, why is biology still confined within this heteronormative sex binary, when so many species deviate from this rigid definition of sex? I am reminded of Butler’s discussion of biology being constrained by language, this article definitely reiterates this claim. If many of nature’s species deviate from this binary, how can we still be fighting to naturalize this binary, why should it exclude many humans’ and animals’ experiences of gender? What is more natural then nature?

Norah Vincent’s, Self-Made Man: A Discussion of Chapters 4-6

These three chapters dealt with Norah Vincent’s insights into Ned’s experiences with dating, life in a monastic setting and working in corporate America. I was particularly intrigued with “Chapter 5: Life”, in which Ned lived with a Catholic monastic order. At first Vincent believed that she would gain new insight into masculinity because sex, specifically sexual encounters with women, where taken out of the picture in a monastic setting. However, many similar insights into masculine identity were discovered, even without the added element of heterosexual sex. In fact, hyper-masculinity plagued many of the monks because they had to suppress any interactions with their fellow brothers that may be classified as homosexual tendencies, which ultimately could progress into sinful sexual acts with fellow brothers. This chapter blew me away because I have never thought of monks being trapped within the construction of hyper-masculinity. I think this is because, like Vincent, I connect hyper-masculinity so strongly to heterosexual interaction with women, that I feel an absence of this relationship with women would ultimately free monks from this demeaning masculinity that forces men to objectify and victimize women.

This chapter drew many similar conclusions to “Chapter 2: Friendship”, in which Ned interacts solely in a male dominant environment. Sexual orientation and homophobia became very important components of Vincent’s observed masculine identity in the monks. There were clear physical and emotional boundaries that were not to be crossed, for fear that another brother may perceive one as gay and thus a threat to one’s vow of chastity. I was fascinated that when Father Fat learned that Ned was a woman, he openly embraced her, just as Jim had done in the chapter on friendship. As soon as Ned was reclassified as a woman, both men were able to let down their emotional and physical guards.

Again, Vincent ends this chapter with certain observational claims about the group of men she spent time with. She states, “I found you can take the man out of his element but you can not very often take the element out of the man” (181). She emphasizes that men removed from the element of heterosexual interaction with women still act within the boundaries of this element. I wonder if this statement is another essentialist claim Vincent is making about masculine identity or is this simply a constructed element in which men have been conditioned into and can never to escape?

In “Chapter 4: Love”, Ned experiences dating and realizes how challenging dating is for men. Vincent believed that Ned would be good at dating because he was indeed a woman, thus aware of what women want. However, this was not the reality. One main theme of this chapter was rejection and how men respond to rejection usually through resentment towards women, thus, pulling the emotional and physical needs of women and men further apart. Vincent concludes that “women have a lot of power, not only to arouse, but to give worth, self-worth, meaning, initiation, sustenance, everything” (127). This comment of women’s power over the heterosexual male is imperative to understanding the insecurities that lie beneath the hyper-masculine exterior of many heterosexual men.

Another important observation was female and male expectations, and there disconnect and mixed signals of female expectations that men have to deal with in a dating environment. She observes, “while a man is expected to be modern, that is, to support feminism in all its particulars, to and treat women as equals in every respect, he is on the other hand often still expected to be traditional at the same time, to treat a lady like a lady…” (112). This double standard is something I have personally struggled with in my relationships and think that a lack of communication between men and women in a date setting is problematic for both sexes.

In “Chapter 6: Work”, I was most intrigued with Vincent’s observations of Ivan, a corporate, chauvinistic, egotistical man that was successful in this “Red-bull” business world. Weaknesses were unacceptable in this group of men, masked through the competitive attitude and strive for success from the work world to the bedroom. Everything revolved around sex, even a successful product sale was “another form of scoring or ranking or winning, and the office reflected this attitude in every respect” (197). The stereotypical sports atmosphere of competitiveness and a drive to score in all aspects of life is observed in this chapter. The weakest link is fired, or forced to the bottom of this hierarchal latter of success, and this is not only a point system based on business sales. This point system depends on every part of the males’ masculine experience, the more beautiful women you fuck, the more points of respect you earn, just as the more sales you make.

I was very upset with this chapter because of all the affluent power these men have and how they reinforce a masculinity that oppresses women. I think I would have screamed at Ivan if I had to listen to all his boasting about fucking women and how intelligent he is. And the most frustrating thing is, how are women suppose to break into cooperate American culture, do they have to “suck it up” and put up with the offensive guy comments and harassment about their sex? If the boss uses this "JUICE" language to pump up his “team”, can a woman ever infiltrate this environment; will she ever be a fully included member? If cooperate strength is defined by these sexist actions, will a woman in cooperate America always be the “weakest link” if she refuses to put-up with this behavior? I am also aware that men are victimized by this cooperate culture because they must participate in this sexist behavior in order to climb the latter of success. It is truly a sad reality, and it reiterates one of the main themes of the book, both men and women suffer from the “masculine” identity.

Butler’s Gender Trouble: The Beginning of Part 3 Subversive Bodily Acts

I will attempt two give a brief summary of the two sections in Part 3: Subversive Bodily Acts. However, we have all come to realize the depth of complexity in Butler’s analysis of other experts in the field of Gender Studies. To decode every one of her sentences would take me a lifetime, so I will focus on the points that I found to be most pivotal to her arguments.

I: The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

Before stating a summary of this section, I will define two important terms used in Kristeva’s theories on genderized language. The ‘Symbolic’ is defined as the paternal law that structures all language signification, the idea that our language inherently is confined by language that is male centered. The second term is ‘semiotic’, which is the construction of reality through symbolic meaning. Butler critiques Kristeva’s ‘theory of the semiotic dimension of language’, drawing on insights that Kristeva makes with her theory but also posing the limitations of the theory.

Kristeva uses Lactanian’s narrative, which assumes that cultural meaning “requires the repression of the primary relationship to the maternal body” (108). Poetic language is defined as an attempt to reclaim the maternal body within the framework of language. It is a linguistic device that fractures and multiplies meaning. Kristeva adds on to this Lacatian idea of the suppression of the maternal body by claiming this phenomena transcends cultural construction. She claims that the maternal body as “bearing a set of meanings that is prior to culture itself” (109). Butler is most critical of Kristeva’s attention to subversion of the dilemma of the ‘maternal body’ and questions Kristeva’s argument of removing the maternal body from the construction of society.

Kristeva uses drive theory in her discussion of the maternal body being confined by language. She claims these drives to emerge before they are placed into linguistic terms that ultimately repress and eliminate these drives. The maternal “signifies both libidinal dependency and the heterogeneity of drives” and the maternal body “signifies the loss of coherent and discrete identity” (113). The drives of maternity ultimately set-up a system of the dependency on the mother, which is defined though the Symbolic. Kristeva believes the semiotic to be repressed by the Symbolic and the Symbolic to be the hegemonic system that is briefly ‘troubled’ by the semiotic. Her purpose becomes to differentiate between the semiotic and the Symbolic.

Butler’s criticism is seen when she discusses Kristeva’s subversion of the maternal body’s connection to heterogeneity, rather than deconstructing the construction of the maternal body’s dependency on heterogeneity discourse. Bultler uses Kristeva’s work to illuminate new claims that Kristeva overlooks, such as the mandate of maternity “as a compulsory defense against libidinal chaos” (117). She discusses this aspect through a discussion of homosexuality and how it deviates from the maternal symbol in lesbianism. A lesbian must go through a series of displacements in order to avoid the maternal drives. An internalized ‘heteronormalcy’ is constructed through biological justification and the lesbian woman is the divergent, the psychotic.

The ultimate error of Kristeva’s theory according to Butler is subversion of the connection between culture and this maternal being. She states:

The law that is said to repress the semeiotic may well be the governing principle of the semiotic itself, with the result that what passes as “maternal instinct” may well be a culturally constructed desire which is interpreted through naturalistic vocabulary. And if that desire is constructed according to a law of kinship which requires the heterosexual production and reproduction of desire, then the vocabulary of naturalistic affect effectively render that “paternal law” invisible. (123)

II: Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity

This section discusses Foucault’s ‘genealogical critique’ of the gender binary that does not support divergence from maleness or femaleness. According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no inherent “sex” and a failure to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. He believes in the necessity of deconstructing the ‘sexed body’ and understanding the power dynamics of the binary. Foucault uses the case study of Herculine, a hermaphrodite that was biologically said to be a girl but showed secondary male sex characteristics and physical features, ultimately choosing a male identity later in life. Foucault focuses on the period of h/er life in which s/he is has not yet became classified as a male by law. He claims this part of Herculine’s life to be ‘non-gendered’, meaning s/he is not forced to comply to the conventions male or female norms, and thus, experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler refutes this point claiming that Herculine struggled a lot during h/er period of being non-gendered because s/he did not fit into a category of the gender binary. Herculine’s case becomes an ultimate example of ‘gender trouble’ because s/he upset that gender/sex binary and challenges the distinction between heterosexuality and lesbianism.

In the “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”, a discussion of the construction of sexed biological language is seen through Dr. David Page’s research, where the lab tried to discover the biological factor that differentiated the sexes. The way in which the Y chromosome was discussed feeds into the male dominant heterosexual discourse, in that the Y chromosome is inherently responsible of maleness and the absence of this, is femaleness. The language went as far as to reinforce the active and passive roles of the chromosomal make-up of men and women respectively! Again, the case of hermaphrodites upsets this research because their chromosomes do not always correspond to the physical characteristics we associate with being a man or a woman, such as the penis and the vagina. However, Butler still expresses problems with the binary because hermaphrodites and people that upset this biological binary are seen as divergent and lacking of the proper assets the understood as being inherently man or women biological features.

Perhaps discussing sex is not as gender neutral or exclusive as we are taught to believe? Biology has even been genderized. And Butler believes troubling the assumptions of nature are imperative to deconstructing the oppressive factors of the gender binary.

Response to Braun, Gavy and McPhillips’ article, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex”

This article examines a new-age heterosex discourse termed “reciprocity”. The authors attempt to unpack the issues surrounding male and female expectations during sex. The premise is that both partners are entitled to give and receive pleasure, with the ultimate goal being orgasm for both partners. While this discourse ensures that female pleasure is accounted for, there are many constraints for both men and women. For example, women feel the pressure to always have an orgasm, while men feel inadequate if they can not sexually please their partner to the point of orgasm. These underlying pressures force heterosexual couples into rigid roles that have specific actions and outcomes expected of them. While we have began to surpass the myths of the female vaginal orgasm and sex solely dependent on penetration, the authors remind us that this framework of reciprocity or “egalitarian” sex can cause significant tension and unfair power distribution in a theoretically equal discourse. In theory, the idea of reciprocity seems flawless but in practice, the way this reciprocity is carried-out, equal sharing of power to actively give and passively receive pleasure is not a reality.

The discussion of “patterns of sex to orgasm” was very interesting. Several couples were interviewed and a pattern of orgasms seemed to develop. The dominant discourse was that women orgasm first, usually through oral stimulation and once the male had completed this task, his orgasms through intercourse. The authors suggest that this sequence of events establishes the idea that women are the passive role, seeing the orgasm as “something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her” (243). This places the male in the active position and instead of this position switching to the female, they both engage in intercourse in order to bring the male to orgasm. Intercourse is not viewed as a gift that the woman gives to her partner, instead it is an act they perform together and thus, the woman is not releases from the passive role.

The next interesting point this article illuminated was the need for a highly sexually educated male to bring his partner to orgasm every time. To me this seems to be an unrealistic ideal that can ultimately cause more harm to both partners. While I believe that both partners are entitled to orgasms, receiving pleasure should not always be defined with the orgasm being the definitive goal. Sexual pleasure is experienced in many different ways and can be fulfilling even it is does not result in an orgasm. A female orgasm not only puts pressure on the woman to always receive “ultimate pleasure” from her partner (which is far from a reality in my opinion), but it also creates a role for men to fulfill this duty or be considered incompetent, or worse yet, feel their partner is incapable of feeling “real” pleasure. I think anxieties of male competence are an issue that many young men I know face. Because there has been so much emphasis on pleasing women in the recent discourse of positive heterosex, if they are unable to bring a woman to orgasm, this threatens their masculine identity. A man responds in an interview that if an orgasm “didn’t happen, then I would be using her” (245), the idea that if the reciprocity is not fulfilled through orgasm then if he orgasms, he will have wrongfully treated his partner. Later, it is also discussed how women feel pressured to have an orgasm in order to boost their partner’s ego. The point is that both partners suffer from this heavy emphasis on reciprocity through orgasm.

The authors discuss positive aspects of reciprocity in heterosex discourse, however, they emphasis the importance of carefully examining every level of this discourse. These levels include the idea of “pure” gifts, the active and passive roles, and male control over the female orgasm. It is important to point these subtitles of experience out because even a more egalitarian discourse can reinforce destructive gender roles that plague our society. I have talked to a lot of girl friends about the pressure we feel to orgasm every time, even when we feel immense amounts of pleasure with the absence of an orgasm, the orgasm seems to be what defines if it was a successful “sex session” or not. I think this article tackles many important issues that I have seen in heterosexual couples that seek to have egalitarian sex.

A Discussion of Gallagher and Kramer's, The Hot Woman's Handbook (Part III)

I was trying to understand why I have issues with Cake’s book. While I see the validity in creating a handbook completely dedicated to women’s pleasure, I discovered that it is the language that bothers me. In class, we have been discussing the need for a new language in which women can express their sexual desires and understand their multifaceted sexuality. However, I do not think Cake accomplishes this in the book. It is still confined by heterosexual language and active sexual descriptions that we have found problematic. I love how accessible the language is because of its raw quality but I have trouble with the violent language used, such as “gripping so hard that one leaves thumbprints” (197) or your partner telling you that you are “a little whore who deserves to be punished” (238). I am not naive to the fact that role-play and power play are fundamental factors of many women’s sex lives, but should this be the norm? What if I am not comfortable having my partner call me “Daddy’s little whore”?

In chapter eleven, The Porn Myth, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the notion that women are not visually stimulated. Many women sexually respond to porn and Cake wants to emphasize the need for porn focused on women’s pleasure. Mainstream porn has been marketed to men, and thus, the content focuses on the male fantasy, with the end being expressed through man ejaculating. Gallagher and Kramer express the need for porn that focuses on female pleasure not defined through this endpoint of male ejaculation. “We want to see ourselves on-screen and identify with the subject” (180). First, Cake assures women that porn can enhance their sexual lives and stimulate them along with men, and second, Cake demands that the porn industry start making porn that caters to women.

In chapter twelve, “Straight” as a Ruler, Gallagher and Kramer deconstruct the strict sexual orientation binary of being either hetero or homosexual. I think this has been a concern for many of us in the class because Cake tends to use language that reinforces heterosexual intimacy. But in this chapter an exploration of hetero and homosexual desires and acts are embraced. Cake expresses that many women who define themselves as “straight” have fantasies and sexual desires of being with women. This section appears to be geared toward women who have had heterosexual relationships but have either experimented women or fantasize about women sexually. Again, this is not tailored to women who are openly lesbians. It focuses on experimentation with both sexes. I loved their discussion of labeling and the brief history they gave (pages 208 to 209) on the societal construct of sexual orientation labels. I agree that these rigid labels need to be deconstructed to allow more freedom to experience all sexual desires with partners of both sexes.

In chapter thirteen, Power Play, Gallagher and Kramer discuss the issue of power dynamics within sexual interaction. Again, the main focus is power roles between heterosexual partners, so the discussion of lesbian sex is not addressed in full. Gallagher and Kramer understand the complication of discussing power dynamics in heterosexual relationships because for so long feminists have been fighting against the image of the submissive woman being a vessel of pleasure for the dominant male. But they stress the point that “letting someone else take control does not mean you are weak, and wanting control does not mean you are the bully” (226). I was interested in the idea that those who experience power in their everyday lives tend to want to be dominated in the bedroom. The feeling of “letting go” and being “dominated” is attractive to several women. However, this was the chapter that I had a lot of personal issues with the language. Cake seems to make being completely dominated, verbally abused, and sexually “taken” without consent to be glorified and sexy. While I understand that Cake is trying to say that if this is how you get off it is okay, not enough attention was given to women who do not like to be in the extreme submissive or dominant role. Is there a way to experience sexual pleasure without this extreme power dichotomy? Can power distribution be more fluid, a little of both, not so extreme as being taken or violently dominating your partner? Can this power be expressed using less violent language?

In chapter fourteen, Birth of the Cake Sam’ich, the idea of threesomes is addressed. The beginning of the chapter is dedicated to WMW (two women and one man) encounters and the second part discusses the “cake sam-ich” or MWM (two men and one woman) encounters. This chapter seemed very fantastical to me. Maybe it is because I associate threesomes with the porn industry and the construction of the male fantasy, rather than an actualized experience by everyday couples. I was interested in the discussion of gender again. I think I was more open to the idea of two women together with a man but could not imagine asking my partner to have a threesome with another man. I became very aware of our homophobic culture, especially regarding men’s sexuality. I found myself getting angry that I was more open to engaging in this act with another woman rather than another man!

I would like to reiterate the fact that Cake’s book was very enlightening in many ways but also limiting. The title says, “the hot woman’s handbook”, but even in their disclaimer Gallagher and Kramer express the fact that the women they are writing to and about are predominately “straight”. I feel as if there main purpose was to deconstruct taboos that have hindered women’s sexual exploration in the past and they do this by using extreme examples of women engaging in these taboo activities. However, I found it hard to identify with many of the definitions of a sexualized woman that Cake offered. I consider myself to be a sexually charged individual that is very open about my sexual desires and needs. Am I truly enlightened if I do not agree or wish to engage in many of the acts this book describes? Where do I fit as a sexual woman?

A Discussion of Ariel Levy's, "Female Chauvinist Pigs" (Chapters 3 and 4)

One of Levy’s underlying themes in both her chapters focused on gender identity and women within raunch culture denying the traditional stereotypes of being a “girly-girl” by adopting a “masculine persona”. I was fascinated by this phenomenon because I have always been taught that women need to celebrate their femininity and that masculinity has been equated with power for far to long. What Levy describes in these chapters is women embracing a hyper-masculine identity and becoming empowered through participating in what has socially been conceived as men’s activities, such as stripping, porn, and enjoying looking at the idealized female body.

In Levy’s third chapter, she defines the title of her book, “female chauvinist pigs” (FCPs) through interviews and observation of women who discarded the “girly-girl” role and as Levy explains, are “creating a new sort of loophole of women who are ‘not like other women’, who are instead ‘like a man’” (96). These FCPs have distain for any women that are overly focused on their feminine appearance and yet, they believe that these women represent “sexiness”. Similar to men, FCPs must enjoy looking at these overtly sexualized women and beneath their cool exterior claim to posses this vibrant sexualized energy that drives raunch culture. In earlier chapters, the materialized definition of “sexy” was a skinny, large-breasted, woman, who was not afraid to take-off her clothes and show her body to the world. It is this narrow definition of “sexy” that has victimized both men and women within raunch culture. In my opinion FCPs struggle with gender socialization, expressing the belief that a man exudes power in society, especially in the sexualized arena. It is not trendy to identify with “feminine qualities” anymore; it is the masculine identity in which these women entertain sexual power. Levy believes that as long as people view womanhood as something to escape from, womanhood will be subordinate to that of manhood. It is difficult for me to identify with FCPs because I have always celebrated my difference from men, celebrated my femininity. I do not wish to let go of these differences and assimilate with this hyper-masculine identity in which I objectify and exploit women’s bodies… my body.

In Levy’s fourth chapter, she continues her gender discussion on a group of lesbian women that are called “bois”. Bois are described as women that take on the physical appearance and mentality of boys. The argument is that boys in society experience the most sexual freedom without consequences, even more so then men, who have family and career responsibilities. The idea that young men are noncommittal and enjoy many sexual partners is extremely appealing for these women. While butch women identify with the stereotypical masculine physical appearance, bois go beyond this, by also adopting the mentality of being a man. It is manhood that represents sexual liberation for these women. Again, I return to the concern with associating masculinity with power and sexual fulfillment in life. If this becomes the standard for a sexually liberated woman, all the fundamental aspects of women’s sexuality become obsolete, perpetuating a system of male sexual dominance. While, I enjoyed reading about these women who are beginning to play with gender roles and perhaps start blurring the binary of being either female of male, the fact that masculinity becomes the desired identity can have harsh consequences on the greater population of women.

I have very mixed feelings about this book so far. The idea that I can experience power through being more “manly” is upsetting to me because I am not a man… there are fundamental differences in being a women that I refuse to deny. I do not have a place within this new age, raunch culture, and yet, I do not see myself as a girly-girl or a woman not in tune with my sexuality and sexual desires. Where do I fit?

Expectations for the Seminar

I am excited to learn about the Third Wave because so much of my previous women studies have focused on the positive and negative repercussions of the Second Wave, or as we call it in our house “ Mama’s days”. While the Second Wave was responsible for bringing political and public awareness to the issues that plagued American women, many gender issues today were either overlooked or introduced in the “feminist agenda” later. I am interested to learn how this new wave of feminism (or gender rights) tackles the issues prevalent in today’s society that were not the focus during the 1970s and 1980s. I am fascinated by this idea of “feminisms”, pluralizing the term because the group “women” consists of multifaceted identities and experiences. I also hope to learn about activism within the realm of gender studies. As stated in our first class, gender studies is not simply theory but also has the ability to be practiced and shared with the larger community.

I have dedicated the last two years of my St. Olaf career to learning about women; it is finally time for me to start sharing my opinions with a group of people equally dedicated to the study of gender inequality. While I am still formulating my thoughts on certain issues, my time abroad on Global has helped me solidify many convictions I have surrounding issues of women’s sexual and reproductive health. I hope to bring these experiences to the table, especially the issue of cultural sensitivity versus potential health risks, in regards to women’s sexuality. Many of the cultures I witnessed were entrenched in patriarchal values, thus, hindering the flourishing and creativity of both genders. I heavily focused on the oppression of women within these cultures, and now hope to explore how the socialization of men in a hyper-masculine environment affects the way women and men communicate and experience relationships together.

I cannot wait to discuss all these issues revolving around genderized roles and sexuality with you all!