sex & gender

[Andrew Reynolds]

I'm posting this for Leanne Castro, who couldn't log in: 

Post 4

Since entering college, my passion for feminism has grown tenfold.  I am sure this is so common and predictable amongst girls my age that an interest in feminism seems almost contrived, but it is true nonetheless.  Plus, an epidemic of feminism amongst college girls is one that should not be quarantined and should instead be injected into all groups of people. Well, that just about exhausts my supply of medical jargon.  Anyway, given this growing feminism of mine, my thoughts on today’s lecture (Thursday 11/7) were far from sparse.  While I agree with a lot of the points that were made, I have one major beef with the entire premise of the conversation: why do we need to define gender, sex, and sexual orientation in the first place?  Pigeonholing a person is inherently reductive, and pigeonholing is exactly the result of forcing a binary upon someone.  Hasn’t experience taught us that people will sleep with whoever they want, regardless what they publicly claim their sexual orientation to be?  In fact, behind closed doors people will even partake in the very sexual acts they publicly condemn (I’m looking at you, publicly homophobic government officials who have “encounters” with male prostitutes in bathrooms).  While the bigotry of these government officials cannot be forgiven, it perhaps would be entirely unavoidable if they had never been expected to adhere to the standards of and fit into the mold of a heteronormative society.  If gender and sexual orientation were erased from society, there would be no room for misunderstanding or bullying about them.  The only arguably relevant method of identification of the three is sex, i.e. the biology of a person.  Sex should be given equal weight as hair color or eye color—it is an identifying feature but not a defining one or a personality shaping one or one on which assumptions can be made. I view these labels in much the same I view the categorization of novels by genre—reductive at the surface level in a way that does not give due credit to the brilliance within. Don’t just a book by its proverbial cover, you know?  

[Kristi Sardina]

Post 4

Kristi Sardina

     After my first reading of (Male) Desire and (Female) Disgust:Reading Hustler, I felt as though Kipnis was completely disregarding the feminist perspective on pornography and essentially discounting all of its merit. The commentary regarding social class, which she strongly emphasized throughout the text, appeared to hold the most importance while any discussion on pornography as misogynistic seemed somewhat irrelevant. During lecture, however, I feel as though our discussion led me to develop a greater appreciation for Kipnis and what I now believe she was attempting to discuss within the context of the piece. Rather than disregarding feminism, Kipnis appears to be critiquing the limitations this view places on itself. As we discussed in class, it seems as though feminism can at times fail to protect gender and solely seek to advocate for the female sex. Essentially the traditional woman, often characterized as straight, white, and upper class, is considered the inspiration for the feminist movement. This movement, however, fails to take into account women whose gender, and subsequent sexuality, differs from the traditional expectations of what the female sex is. Kipnis appears to address this issue by emphasizing the role of social class within her piece. She comments on how the upper class appears to define the lower classes as inferior and unrefined, yet she proceeds to note how Hustler portrays these upper class individuals as expressing themselves in much the same way as those of the lower class. This effectively portrays the similarities between these varying social groups whose differences had been heavily exaggerated. In creating a connection between the upper and lower classes, Kipnis may be suggesting to the feminist movement to reconsider who they aim to empower. Rather than focusing on misogyny, feminism should aim to better understand its own intent and ensure it empowers women of all social stratum regardless of their sexuality and how severely they deviate from the traditional depiction of the female sex. While I initially believed Kipnis was admonishing the feminist perspective, I now believe she was attempting to improve its effort by pointing out these significant flaws.

[russellp...@gmail.com]

I do agree that pornography is not the most intellectually sound medium of literature society has, but I also feel like pornography has some merit as well. I mean definitely not the pictures in the pornography magazines as much but some of the literature in the magazines could really catch the eye of some in different context. It seems to me that feminist many times discredit pornography, but I sometimes wonder about the feminist's view on the pornography made just for women. Does it degrade men? Do men think that way? It just really intrigues me if there is some sort of double standard going on in what seemed to be a one sided part of society. I am not saying that feminist's do not have the right to be against pornography because I understand the point they make. What do feminists view as the ideal man. What about same sex couples. I have seen several sites that are on one side supporting gay rights and some feminists that are against gay marriage. Without attempting to be stereotypical I wondered how feminists view transgendered people. or is there such a thing as transgendered or is transgendered just someone confused. I know there are trans people but gender is just an idea to me. Sex is what is going on with your reproduction organs. Gender is essentially what you want to be viewed. "Some feminists such as Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys believe that transgender and transsexual people uphold and reinforce sexist gender roles and the gender binary, while other feminists, such as Judith Butler and Judith Halberstam, believe that transgender and transsexual people challenge repressive gender norms and that transgender politics are fully compatible with feminism. " According to this quote feminists are on the fence on this issue as well.

[Amanda Warren]

Post # 4

     I kind of agree with the class discussion in the way that some brands of feminism are limiting. Second wave feminism is over and it is surly time for the third-wave, sex positive, inclusive wave to stand up.  I think that our discussion just highlighted this.  The traditional second wave was very limiting and I think rather than discrediting feminism altogether we should be able to redefine it.  We should be able to be inclusive as feminists. (Can you tell I am a feminist yet?) 

     As for labels; I think that our class discussion was treating most of these labels as a binary. Gender, sex, sexuality, romantic orientation( something discussion ignored), they are all a spectrum. A person gets to choose how they identify, rather than their peers choosing for them.  I think that when talking about labels we should keep in mind that the user defines the label and not society. We do not have the right to label others, only to respect their labels.  

     It is important for us to consider the spectrum, and one's ability to be anywhere on it. There is something to be said about the hundreds of preferences one could have. Remembering the difference between Sex and Gender and Sexuality, but also remembering that Romantic orientations differ too. That because one is sexually attracted to women, one might not be romantically attracted to women. There are people who are asexual and,or aromantic , that don't become sexually and/or romantically attracted to people. When we discussed Sexuality I feel like our discussion centered around "Straight, Gay, lesbian"  and the queer community is more than that.  We should address all of the different people in the community or at least acknowledge that they are there.  I think we can do this if we remember that it is a spectrum, not a binary. 

[Justin Rosenthal]

I've been trying to post this as a non-reply, but can't seem to figure out how to not reply directly to Prof Reynolds' (Leanne's) post. Additionally, I'll add a preface here that I'm absolutely intrigued and overwhelmed by all of the posts here relating to Kipnis's piece. Because it deals with sexuality and feminism, it is relevant to many issues that people are very opinionated about, and thus bunny trails abound and we could spend entire walls and walls of text or class periods just discussing narrow manifestations of a few of the topics in Kipnis's piece. So, I guess I'll say that these topics seem very difficult to consolidate or focus a lot of the time: they sort of end up being like a very broad searchlight as opposed to a laser beam. But is the laser beam better? Am I being even more irrelevant here by talking about talking about this topic? Am I coming off as insane right now?

I'll agree with Leanne's point about the fact that defining gender, sex, and sexual orientation, etc. can be very reductive at times, and this defining process more often than not results in pigeonholing and misjudging. However, I feel that it is also useful. Whether we like it or not, we are a part of a hetero-normative society. We have inherited many values that are more Victorian than progressive, and especially in the southern United States, the manifestations of these values are not difficult to find. Thus, this tends to be not only the "default" focus point of society as a whole (unfortunately): namely, defining people according to these reductive terms, but the focus of individuals as well (categorizing the lives of others along these lines). Additionally (this point will probably create controversy, and I'm open to being wrong), I'll say that stereotypes are pretty useful until they're wrong. So, for instance, a gay man (or a man who is a 6 on the Kinsey scale, however you want to slice it) is more likely to take certain actions than a straight man, and is likely to behave in different ways than a straight man would.

Now, however we feel about the way our society is and the points I just mentioned, it is imperative that we notice how bland a lot of literature would be without these sorts of conflicts caused by them. What are the consequences of X woman acting more traditionally "masculine" in this novel, or this man's curious advances on his friend of the same sex? This is where it becomes a bit fuzzy, as premature evaluations of characters (the "pigeonholing" and "reductiveness" we discussed earlier) could cause us to stumble here. Especially before literature and/or society begins to actually reflect a more nuanced understanding of gender/sexuality/sex, it might be helpful to take our prejudices into consideration when evaluating the dynamics of a novel, story, or...magazine, I guess?

Or, I guess another way of looking at it would be that literature sort of has to use the tools that it is given to grapple with social issues that are being questioned in the current era. So, sort of like the palimpsestic novels of the Victorian era, we could have a novel with events that appear to conform to a heteronormative society that is actually subversive underneath. I have no idea if there actually is or will be an example of this at some point, however.

[Nathan O. Walters]

Amanda, good point! I forget about the fluidity of gender and sexuality too frequently (coming from the perspective of a cis, straight, white male in a heteronormative society), and I had never considered the idea of romantic interests being aligned differently than sexual desire. Interesting. Now that I think about it, though, I know someone who identifies as asexual but is in a romantic relationship. Here comes post-coffee rambling. I think we're taught by pop culture, religion, and our parents that sexual intercourse is this superlative thing (either it's the best, or the worst, or both at the same time, but you shoul feel guildy for even thinking about it at all! read: Twilight, conservative Christianity, etc.). It must be very liberating to have a romantic relationship without all those seual expectations tied up in it! Plus, sex causes babiees sometimes, and we certainly don't need any more humans on this planet. Moving on. I think the gender queer concept is also very freeing, but society makes it a hard time. I have a roomate, Stephen, who prefers the "they" pronoun because they don't subscribe to the cultural expectations of what a man is (though I happily oblige, it hurts the English major inside me to refer to a single person with a collective pronoun). Stephen also dresses in traditionally feminine clothing and accessories (eyeliner, miniskirts, bangly earrings), but it also attracted sexually and romantically to women exclusively. Stephen came into my workplace one day and my coworkers had a field day lambasting Stephen's appearance. When I told them that Stephen is my friend, they stared at me in disbelief. Lots of transphobic jokes followed. I am glad at how far we as a society have come in accepting non-normative sexuality and gender, but we still have a long way to go.
Regarding Kipnis, I enjoyed her analysis of Hustler's interest in class and the ways that some circles of anti-porn feminism are steeped in an upper-class notion of "disgust." However, I resented her characterization of pro-porn feminists. I don't have time to go back to the reading but I seem to remember her typifying this kind of feminist as an S & M lovin', whip-smackin' freak who ultimately sets back the feminist movement with her acceptance of porn and, with it, the patriarchy. I know lots of pro-porn feminists who talk about the ways in which some progressive modern pornography usurps the violence and misogyny typical of the form with plot lines that circumvent the domination and "Hey you lesser being, pleasure me!" egotism of hetero-male-centric pornography with more egalitarian narratives. Then again, there is the Andrea Dworkin argument that heterosexual intercourse is inherently violent. What do you all think?

[Taylor Robinson]

Post #5

In response to Russell, I also question feminists’ view about pornography that is for men. I also wonder if they ever think about the fact that pornography may be empowering the women in the film. Level with me for a moment here. What is more powerful than complete control? (Even if it is for a few moments) Women in porn have the complete mental and physical control over a man both in the scene and those that are sitting on their couches across the world. I think that this view is very closed minded because there are TONS of categories of pornography that appeal to every type of person. So to say that the women in these films are being degraded is not fair and just untrue. Another thing that I’ve never really liked about the whole feminist movement is that many women want “equal rights” from society and wanted to be treated as equals to men, but only where it is beneficial to them. These women want equal pay (which I think there should be if both parties are qualified) but they also want to be “treated like a lady” and given certain treatment because they are a woman. If you claim that you want equal rights in all aspects of life, mean JUST THAT! Do not express your disdain that women are paid considerably less than men in the workplace if you insist that a man pulls out your chair and opens doors for you. I know many women who are feminists, but the majority of them are homosexual women who have had traumatic experiences with men. My question now becomes how they feel about men who identify as a woman with their gender. Should he be allowed in the woman’s restroom and be able to pull out his genitalia to use the restroom because they are “equal”? Would these feminists be offended or welcome him with open arms? Many times I feel like feminists aren’t pro-equality, but rather anti-male.

Word Count: 332

[Liz Dunne]

Post 5

I find that I tend to take the same approach that Russell does in defining sex and gender, that is, I see sex as your biology, and gender as how you are perceived by society. So maybe sexuality is what you choose to do with your gender? I do think that a person can fall anywhere on a number of different spectra (as Amanda brought up). So maybe sexuality is determined by compiling all a person’s spectrum data? I also think that a person’s preferences can always shift in any direction (but I don’t think that time spent in any one state of sexuality should be labeled a “phase” as this seems demeaning and connotes a negative fickleness). Ah, this is such a slippery subject! I always come to the conclusion that if sexualities seem so determined to elude set definitions, maybe we should stop trying to define them! And it might be goobery, but I honestly feel that a person can be anything for the right other; someone could currently identify as straight but then meet a person of the same sex that they connect with and begin a romantic and/or sexual relationship with. For me, what you do, with whoever you choose to do it with is personal and instinctive. This conviction is part of the reason I didn’t particularly like the article by Wittig, because it seemed as if she was aggressively preaching that women should collectively use their sexualities as political tools for the benefit of the female race.

And the whole pornography discussion seems to be just as slippery as the one on sexuality. On the one hand, I think that some women involved in the porn business might take pride in their work, I mean there is something to be said about them calling themselves porn stars and attending the AVN Awards (Oscars of porn). At the same time, I would have to disagree with Taylor and say that I don’t think women in pornographic movies are ever in “complete control” because they are always being directed (often by men). I think the thing that feminists don’t like about porn is that it appears to be an industry contrived and controlled by men. But I believe anti-feminists need to consider the women featured in pornography, like realize that the industry they want to destroy is how some women make their living.

[Lindsay Miller]

Post 5 - Lindsay Miller

 

Leanne has made some very good points here. Sex is a trait from the list of physical characteristics, though it has been extrapolated in an argument that tangles together normative claims about sexuality and gender. And you are right, it is not necessary to define all of these terms, in the first place. I have always disliked when others try to put a label on any one unique thing, and somehow place it in a box. I can remember seeing interviews with John Mayer, and other musical artists, who abhor the thought of being placed into any one genre, or mix of several other sub-categories of genre. And I can understand their frustration. Why do we have to generalize everything? The same goes for your argument here. After all, we are all human individuals, composed of different strands of DNA - out of countless combinations available. Shouldn't it be understood that we are each individuals, and that you cannot generalize the human race, though certain people will always try. I remember discussing Willa Cather, in last week's class, and the corresponding reading, claiming that she was a lesbian author. But why should her sexuality matter, in regards to how the piece is viewed as a creative work? If the writing is of great quality and value, than why can't we appreciate the author for who she is? - a great story teller.

At the end of the day, it is up to each of us, individually, to make our own decisions, regarding who we want to be, how we want to act, the type of people we wish to associate with, and how we go about finding our own individual happiness. It is not anyone's place to judge another based on their sexual preference, sexuality, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever other words the status quo has come up with. We have each been given free will, and thus the freedom to make our own decisions. That freedom comes with responsibility, but how that freedom is exercised, is no one's concern, but your own.

[nathalia sosa]

POST 5:

I choose to revisit this topic as my last and final post for the class because I felt like it was possibly the most participated discussion during the semester. The reason for this is because it is so relevant to our generation. This particular issue about pornography definitely challenges and complicates the binary because it proposes and issue that is more individualistic than group oriented. What I mean by this is that the issue of pornography is a topic that stirs controversial feelings of gender, religion, morals, society, and sex. Thus, it is ignorant to assume that all feminists will have the same view point on this subject simply because the issue at hand involves women. While it can be argued that many people find pornography degrading I think that many women, especially those who pose for nude magazines, will say that it is empowering. There is an air of confidence found in the women who pose for magazines that most women in society do not have. This creates a difficult problem because women feel threatened and thus in a cunning way choose to attack pornography under the disguise of “feminism”. While I myself am a women I do not claim to be a “feminist” and I often find that women who do, choose to advocate for the female gender only when it is convenient to them. Lastly, to answer the question does pornography degrade men? I believe it can but it does not always have to. The reason is because if a man is addicted to porn, or if it causes him to loose focus from his family and marriage than yes it most certainly is degrading. Loss of self control is degrading to any human; however do single men have to right to view pornography? that is their business and their choice whether they will allow any media to degrade them. 

[Matthew Seif]

Post 5

After discussing this topic so thoroughly in class and examining numerous feminist writers over even before taking this class, I can honestly say agree with Leanne. There is no real reason why we should define sex and gender so much to the point where it completely overshadows an individual’s character. Last semester I read one of Hilda Doolittle’s works title “Trilogy” and it was by far the most intense feminist piece I’ve ever read. Prior to reading “Trilogy”, I learned about feminism in high school but I never really examined the topic any further. After reading this incredible feminist manifesto that Doolittle crafted in 1946, I realized that she was so ahead of her time in how innovative her feminist concepts were throughout her story. I have a lot of respect of Hilda Doolittle as well as other revolutionary feminist writers such as Kate Chopin who was believed to be the first feminist writer in America. This movement had such an influence on literature in American history that the issues that are being discussed in this thread of gender and sexual orientation have grown from the issues of women in society that occurred a century ago. The main physical characteristics that separate us as people such as race and gender will always be causing issues as history has shown.  Although as we progress, I see less of these issues becoming as serious as they used to be. The example of how the masses viewed homosexuality even just 10 years ago and now how much their views have changed is exactly my point. Considering all that has happened in the past regarding gender and sex in society, I’d say that the only logical idea would be that it is unique to the person and one cannot simply categorize a group by their sexuality. Also, pornography is a choice that women make as a means to a career. I really do not see any problem with females that choose to earn their salary in this way as it is not illegal and they are being paid fairly for their work. I can see why feminists are highly against this business as it promotes females in a negative light, however this is probably not the way that the actors look at it as they get paid for it. 

Word Count: 385

[Clacci Harmon]

Homosexuality, gay, lesbian, and queer are all terms that I feel place beings into socially defined groups that are unnecessary. These groups are attempting to characterize people and sometimes even animal activity that causes discrimination and inequality. The terms are forced upon individuals who sometimes don't believe or agree(50) with group that they are being classified by. Conflict arises and people are dispositions internally because of the lack of social acceptance that they experience. In some cases there are severe reactions to the lack of social acceptance that result in suicide or self-inflicted physical pain. According to Rich(100)the term homosexual was coined in 1869 as a medical term to describe a sickness. It has been typical for society to label behavior that is not traditional as a sickness. Making the term associated with a sickness seems to help society dehumanize people associated with the term. It's almost (150) as if society uses these terms to justify their disapproval of the behaviors associated with the lifestyles of homosexuals, gays, lesbians, and queers. I strongly believe that no two brains would cause a person to behave the same, even if they share similar qualities and characteristics. The disapproval of people (200) that are associated with anything other that heterosexuality is largely due to religious beliefs. I believe that if people were less religious and more spiritual they would be less reluctant in accepting others that engage in non traditional behavior. Homosexual, gay, lesbian, and queer are terms that are highly discussed(250)in regards to sexual preference. Sexual preference is a key distinguisher between the terms but there are also behaviors that society uses to place people in the realms of these terms. Gender is another key factor in distinguishing one group from another. A person could be demonstrating "normal" behavior but if it is not considered normal within his/her gender then they would be deemed "sick" or unacceptable. A persons sexual behavior shouldn't effect us as a community as much as it has and still is effecting us and how we engage with and approach others.
Word count: 388

[Samantha Campbell]

Issues of sex and sexuality and gender performance so often boil down to this really complex question of choice. A lot of the above responses call to mind a piece I read for my Rhetoric class called “Postfeminism and the Politics of Inclusion” by Jess Butler. Basically Butler is arguing that is Postfeminism is just another way of reinforcing past gender/racial hierarchies by privileging a white, middle-class, heterosexual subject and by encouraging women to conform to gender norms in the name of Feminism. Butler claims that Postfeminism encourages practices that are “progressive but also consummately and reassuringly feminine” (so-called “girly feminists” get their nails done and buy fashionable clothes because they have the right to choose to follow traditional gender roles) which is kind of the point: according to Butler, Postfeminism is so widespread because women are encouraged to participate in the labor market, which means that a new discourse had to adapt to make sure that existing gender hierarchies.

As I was reading, though, I couldn’t help but wonder how we would even begin to combat this. Like, if we champion Postfeminism then we’re falling into this trap of not challenging problematic hierarchies, but if we resist “girly” feminism, we’re trying to control women and remove their right to choose (which sounds a lot like what Feminism is trying to fight in the first place.) The same sort of conundrum comes to mind with the porn thing—I saw the argument made that perhaps pornography is actually empowering to women, which makes sense to me from a perspective of women choosing to wield their sexuality in a way that makes them feel powerful. At the same time, though, it makes sense to me that some of the more degrading (depending on your point of view) things that go down in porn would desensitize people to the idea of women as objects to be used and abused, so I don’t know. If we try to make it illegal then we take away the right to choose based on the premise that a group of people knows better than the women in question, but maybe it’s for the greater good? Is it even possible at this point to know if you’re into something because you choose to be as opposed to society actively pusing you to be into it? 

[Sanura Frazier]

Post 5

 

Until this class I had never really given real thought to the idea of what sex and gender meant to different people but our recent readings have given me an alternate perspective on that issue. Monique Witting's, "One Is Not Born a Woman" was one of the most influential, enlightening readings for me. It was intriguing that Witting in a nutshell argued that women were not a "natural group" but was instead a product of "mental manipulation" and politics. That women as an entirety are basically trapped inside their bodies, forced to conform to the preconceived notions and ideas of what a woman is suppose to be.....I honestly could understand that especially looking at her essay from the perspective of a person that considered themselves a lesbian or transgender as well as with people that identify themselves as "straight". In our society children are pushed from birth to act like this and play with this instead of that because they were a specific "sex". But what is not understood or sympathized with is those children that comprehend that their sex is for example a girl but their heart and preference's are that of a male. Because there a stigmata attached to children and adults being gay period a lot of men and women are afraid to show their true colors so to speak which leads to an unhealthy repression of their feelings. The exact same thing happens to men and women that are straight because a man who does not completely embody the characteristics of "Bob the Builder" is considered to be and referred to as metrosexual and a woman that isn't "Martha Stewart" (minus the jail time)  is likewise a butch woman or a tom boy. Going outside the boundaries of what you are "classified" to be in my opinion scares our society so instead of fostering and embracing the differences that we all have whether it is sexual preference's or personality types we reject it which is what I feel like Witting was discussing in part of her article.

[Courtney Hughes]

Post # 5

 

Kipnis aims to illuminate the boundaries of gender issues and sexual politics in our media; and according to her, pornography is a form of civil disobedience we could learn a few things from. Porn is an interesting aspect of human culture, and to study it through the lens of feminism is even more stimulating. Readers, viewers, and consumers would do well to keep in mind the variance in feminist theory, pornography, and in society in general.

 

In porn, the images, the films, and the sexual acts differ.  In mainstream culture pornography is often viewed as degrading. It can be shaming, traumatizing, and abusive, and often is. As discussed in previous posts and in class, society tends to categorize, pigeon hole, label, and organize to understand and accept. Kipnis is challenges this norm and its application to other issues in society.

 

Alternatively, porn can be viewed as a liberating, creative, and incredibly empowering experience for women. The making, viewing, and reading can be valuable for some women. Consider the ever popular, always tacky, grocery store romance novel. More soft porn than literature, I would argue many women devour these novels in an attempt to feel sexually satiated.

 

I have a friend who became involved in making pornographic films this year. It has been interesting discussing the reactions to her choice with those who know her. It is also interesting to watch “porn star” become her identity to others. It has masked all other aspects of her being to most people. Despite this, she feels liberated, finally able to express herself sexually in an environment that she deems safe, encouraging and creative.

 

Advocates of porn will often defend the women involved, saying they are getting paid to do what we all do anyway, and that they love the work. Yet, many people wouldn’t want to bring a porn star home for Christmas. This is the blurred line Kipnis is drawing attention to, and I appreciate her work for this reason.