Feminism and Queer Theory

Gender and Sexuality

            ‘Finding a voice,’ a metaphor for self-transformation is what African- American feminist theorist, bell hooks, describes as the oppressed woman speaking out and writing for the first time. She says speaking allows oneself to transform from an object to that of a subject and “only as subjects can we speak” (p.175).

 

     Feminism is a way for the oppressed to ‘find their voice’. It is feminism that has placed gender on the academic agenda (Storey, 135). It is not a monolith, but diverse. Storey states that there are four different feminisms: radical, Marxist, liberal, and dual-systems theory. They are all diverse in terms of the conclusion that they each draw from their feminism issues. Radical feminism is seen as the model for all other kinds of oppression. The argument is that women’s oppression stem from the patriarchal system. It is seen as the root of their problems. There is the belief that men must change before equality between men and women is achieved. Marxist feminist analysis ultimate source of oppression is capitalism.

            The domination of women by men is seen as a consequence of capital’s domination over labour (p.135). There is economic inequality between women and men. Liberal feminism is different form radical and Marxist feminism because it does not present a system that decides the oppression of women. It, on the other hand, tends to see the problem in terms of male prejudice against women, embodied in law or expressed in the exclusion of women from particular areas of life (p.175). It takes on an individualized approach, stressing individual empowerment and it is characterized by the belief that women have the ability to attain equality. The women have to prove themselves as equal to men and the only way to accomplish this is for laws to change that are disadvantageous to them. Finally, the dual-systems theory represents the coming together of Marxist and radical feminist analysis in the belief that women’s oppression is the result of a complex articulation of both patriarchy and capitalism (p.175). 

 

Women at the Cinema

            LauraMulvey’s account of the ‘male gaze’ has had an enormous influence; however, it has not been met without criticism. Some feminist doubted the ‘universal validity’ of her account of the ‘male gaze’ and whether it was always the male doing the ‘gazing’ or could there be other ways of seeing, particularly by the female.

 

Lorraine Gamman and Margaret Marshment advocate a cultural politics of intervention: ‘we can’t afford to dismiss the popular by always positioning ourselves outside of it’ (p. 137). They go on to say that the entertainment and information that we in society receive is from popular culture. It is here that women (and men) are offered the culture’s dominant definitions of themselves. It would therefore seem crucial to explore the possibilities and pitfalls of intervention in popular forms in order to find ways of making feminist meanings a part of our pleasures (p.137).

            Jackie Stacey conducted her own analysis based on responses she’d received from women that were mostly working class and over the age of 60. These women were avid movie-goers in the 1940s and 1950s. Escapism, identification and consumption, were three discourses that the analysis generated responses for and through her analysis it was revealed that the main reason the women went to the cinema was for escapism. The women wanted a time-out from the world around them. It was more than just the Hollywood glamour. The physical space of the cinema provided a transitional space between everyday life outside of the cinema and the fantasy world of the Hollywood film about to be shown (p.138). 

      Here they are able to forget their problems for a short amount of time. Stacey’s second analysis is identification, ‘by which women collude and become implicit in their own oppression’ (p.139). However, she claim that identification can be shown to work quite differently by shifting the focus from the female spectator constructed within the film text to the actual female in the audience in the cinema (p.139). There is this fantasy and dream-like state that the female spectator is in while in the cinema. Consumption, she insists is ‘a site of negotiated meanings, of resistance and appropriation as well as of subjection and exploitation’ (p.139).  

The Problem That Has No Name

            Betty Friedan acknowledges a problem that women had placed on their minds for many years and was afraid to ask—“Is this all?” Women were ‘unhappy’ and ‘dissatisfied’ with their lives as housewives and wondered if it was more to life than a housewife’s daily work routine. Experts would write columns and books ‘telling women their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers’ (Lemert, p.362). But these were educated women who had a longing to do something else with their lives bedsides being a housewife and mother. Friedan blames the media (the so-called experts) for this idealized image of the beautiful stay-at-home wife and mother. Experts would tell the women ‘how to catch a man and keep him’, bear children and put the needs of others before her own. According to Friedan, this mystique of feminine fulfillment became the cherished and self-perpetuated core of contemporary American culture (p.363).            

      Many women mirrored their lives in the image of an American suburban housewife kissing and sending her husband off to work, children off to school and cleaning house. This was an ideal image for them. They all wanted to marry, have children and live in a nice home in the suburbs. But Friedan believed that women were given a false perception of what true womanhood was. In the 1950s and 1960s, if a woman felt there was something wrong with her, she attributed it to her marriage or herself.

            She was reluctant and ashamed to admit her dissatisfaction and it was hard to understand and discuss with others. For some, they wouldn’t admit to even having a problem at all. But Friedan concluded that ‘the problem that has no name’ stirring in the minds of so many American women today is not a matter of loss of femininity or too much education, or the demands of domesticity. It is far more important and can no longer be ignored. A woman can no longer ignore the voice within that says: “I want something more than my husband and my children and my home (p.364).

 

Masculinity 

    As it has been pointed out there are numerous works centered on feminism and feminist theory. Shifting from femininity the text briefly examines masculinity and Queer theory (specifically focusing on the work of Judith Butler). Feminism has been the lens through which researchers have examined countless topics.  Mens studies, at least in my opinion, seems to be something that is a newer approach (even though feminism researchers have problems with this approach). However, researchers have raised concern because according to Schwenger, “ for men to think about masculinity is to become less masculine” (CTPC, 159).

            Much like Queer theory, masculinity researchers believe that masculinity, like gender and sexual identity, is a cultural construct- it is not ‘natural’ and often a heterosexual myth. “Dominant masculinity” or what Nixon’s called the “new man masculinity” is often projected onto society through mass media-different types of advertising, clothing stores and magazines (CTPC, 159). With this being said it seems that there is a bright future for those who are interested in deconstructing masculinity in similar ways that femininity has been examined.

Is this the 'new man'?

Queer Theory

     Queer theory is a field of study that examines and critiques the “relationship between lesbians, gay men and the culture which surround and (for the large part) continues to seek to exclude [them]” (CTPC, 160). As laid out in the text Queer theory seeks to “attack” what modern society has constructed and preached, natural gender and heterosexuality. Throughout Queer research you will find that many of the scholars focus on performance.

     

      Judith Butler is probably one of the most influential and well-known scholars in this field. de Beauvoir believed that “one is not born a woman, but, rather, becomes one’ (p.160), this statement seems foundational for Butler’s argument that sex and gender are culturally and politically constructed identities that we learn to perform. For Butler gender is not any more natural than femininity and masculinity. In fact, they are “cultural performance in which naturalness is constituted through discursively constrained performative acts” (p.161).

            This idea of performativity, for Butler, comes from J.L. Austin’s work which views language in two ways: constative and performative. Constative is descriptive language, while performative does more than describe, it brings something into being (p.161). We see this at play in Butler’s piece Imitation and Gender Insubordination. In this essay she spends time talking about ‘coming out’ and how the language of coming out continues to produce new ‘closets’. Butler states, “If I claim to be a lesbian, I ‘come out’ only to produce a new and different ‘closet’…the ‘you’ to whom I come out now has a different [view]…before you did not know whether I ‘am’, but now you do not know what that means…” she goes on to say “being ‘out’ always depends to some extent on being ‘in’...the sense of ‘outness’ can only produces a [new closet]” (Storey, 564).

            I believe that Butler gives us an interesting example how performing the discourse of ‘coming out’ both provides some freedom but only to the extent that it creates a new discourse for what it means to be in the closet. How lesbians and gay men choose to ‘come out’ is a performative act, but when this act takes place they are setting the ‘norm’ for those who are still in the closet. Think of examples we have seen of people ‘coming out’- maybe a friend caught them with a same sex partner, maybe a conversation was had with parents- all of these acts set the norm for how one should ‘come out’. When closeted individuals choose to not perform these acts, but choose a different option, they are not only setting new norms but they are reinforcing the closet.

            Just like ‘coming out’, Butler believes, that gender is a performative reality that we create through social performances and these performances count on consumption. Michael Warner said it best when he connected gay culture and consumption (and the same can be said of gender norms) we are part of the capitalist machine. Society produces images and products that are “so me” and when we buy or use these things we are creating performative acts. So if a gay man goes to a gay bar, he is buying into the image that this is what gay men do. He is part of a discourse that says if you want to be a cool gay man you have to go to this bar.

Taking a page from Brian's book. Look at these pictures of me (Crystal). What performative acts had to take place to transform me from tomboy to children's pageants? Think back to de Beauvoir belief that "one is not born a woman, but, rather, becomes one." 

You can't even tell my gender here? In fact I look like my brother!

In this one you can tell that my hair is longer at least giving the appearance of a female child.

Obviously there were some performative acts (whether it was my choice or forced by my mother) that took me from the photos above to this.

1. Does feminism have too much influence on today’s society?

2.     What are the issues you have with the four types of feminism? Explain why it’s an issue?

3.     What performative acts must you do on a daily basis in order to maintain your femininity or masculinity? If you believe you go against the grain and do not perform such acts explain if you are treated different? Do people acknowledge that you are not performing your gendered norm?

4.     What are your thoughts and reactions to the following quote: “Drag is not the putting on of a gender that belongs properly to some other group…there is no proper gender, a gender proper to one sex rather than another, which is in some sense that sex’s cultural property” (Storey, 568).