#gaylerubin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

queerlives-queerpolitics · 10 years

Text

Intersectionalities by Jasmin Patron

According to Gayle Rubin in "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality," sexuality is the primary agent for the repression of western society. It is through the outlet of sex by which the state governs and rules its people. To exemplify, she utilizes Michael Foucault’s philosophy in the belief that sex is institutionalize not according to biological needs, but the social norms that have been created throughout history. For example, the early use of sexual repression on young children. Early on, techniques were used on young girls to eliminate any form of sexual desire. Moreover, she introduces the “charmed circle” in order to explain the normal vs. deviant. The normal being on the left side which embodies anyone who identifies as heterosexual, married, monogamous, procreative, non-commercial, in pairs, in a relationship, same generation, in private, no pornography, bodies only, and vanilla. On the right hand you have all those outside of the margins which include: homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non-procreative, commercial, alone or in groups, casual etc. Altogether, she points to this divide between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad,’ which separates society and in turn creates a caste system that values some more than others. Nonetheless, she suggests that we rethink a feminist politics of sexuality.

In contrast, Cathy Cohen in "Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queen," is more concerned with the multiple systems of oppression. She states that sexuality is not the main sector for the oppression of people because, as she says, "being heterosexual isn’t enough" to grant you all the benefits of society (442). Although, she agrees that heterosexual privilege negatively impacts and constrains the lived experiences of "queers," so too does racism, classism and sexism. This is due to the multiple systems of oppression that operate to limit the entitlement of rights and status. In explaining, she critiques queers politics as they have failed to address the much more deep-rooted dilemma---systemic domination. As she mentions, there are also versions of domination and normalization being replicated and employed by non-privileged group members. For example, although heterosexuals have more privilege than white “queers,” white “queers” may be more privileged when put into context with black “queers.” Meaning, not all people encounter the same experiences because each system of oppression overlaps to deny or approve the rights of individuals. Furthermore, we also have the “welfare queens” that although fit into the category of heterosexual, are no perceived as normal, worthy of state support (442). Then so, she questions who really fits into this category of normativity. In this case, most of us don’t. For that reason, she suggests that we take a turn from “assimilation” politics and instead aim towards a movement building rooted on the share marginal relationship between people. In sharing experiences of oppression, people can form coalitions that build indigenous resources, shape consciousness and ultimately act collectively.

#GayleRubin #CathyCohen #queer #intersectionality #systemsofpower

0 notes

thingsandstufforwhatever · 11 years

Text

Opinions Not Neutral on the Issue of Gender: how genderless society is starting right now

In 1975 Gayle Rubin wrote The Traffic of Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex to clarify the existing definition of the sex/gender system. Rubin concludes this piece with the hope that the social conditions that creates the distinction of genders would be broken down and that society would become genderless and therefore gender oppression would cease to exist. Firstly, it will be explained how Rubin came to this conclusion and the meaning. Secondly, the ways Rubin’s hopes are manifesting into actuality in modern society will be explored through the examination of news articles.

Rubin’s analysis can be broken into two distinctive parts, the first being that of the kin relation which explores the initial oppression of women and the second being how this oppression is generationally maintained. Rubin begins by framing the analysis in terms of Marx’s theory of the construction of meanings via the social advent of relationships, and transposing that theory to look at the oppression of women. Rubin discounts Marx’s theory of capitalist oppression of the worker as the initial reason women became oppressed, because it does not analyse the difference of oppression between sexes. Rubin also challenges the feminist relation to this theory by making the point that women are also oppressed in non-capitalist societies. Rubin introduces the concept that the customs of procreation are socially decided, by examining Engles’s recognition of humanity’s requirement to both satiate material needs and the social construction of them, concluding that “sex as we know it is a social product” (Rubin, 1975: 166). This concept is then expanded to apply to gender, the social meaning of which differs according to societies.

Rubin goes on to inspect Lévi-Strauss’s concept of kinship systems, which are stated to be a primary producer and enforcer of socially created sexuality. By ‘kinship system’, Rubin refers to a non-genetic way to categorise social relations. These relations may differ broadly between societies. Lévi-Strauss’s female oppression theory stems from the basis of kinship theory, the exchange of women by men due to the “incest taboo” and “gift theory” (Rubin, 1975; pp. 171). Rubin clarifies the female oppression reading of Lévi-Strauss’s work by noting that women are not necessarily oppressed by becoming ‘gifts’, but rather that they are simply bestowed with individual qualities. In the process, Rubin highlights the distinction between gift and giver. Rubin also notes that sexual difference is placed in the realms of socially constructed systems rather than in biology. Rubin finds problem with the implications of Lévi-Strauss’s theories, as the conclusion drawn is that the exchange of women is a necessity to kinship systems, the basis upon which culture originated. Social construction of sex, as well as the oppression of women, are the by-product of kinship systems. Therefore, the existence of culture is dependent on the oppression of women. Thus it is pointed out that Lévi-Strauss’s theories in this matter are highly questionable.

Turning attention to Lévi-Strauss’s theory of the divide of work by sex to ensure heterosexuality and intensifying the social distinction between genders. Rubin states that gender is a socially forced constructed separation of the sexes by subdual of similarities, creating two halves that must be made whole by marriage.

Rubin turns a psychoanalytical eye to how this engenderment occurs in children. Rubin asserts that Freud’s theories of female ‘penis envy’ and the Oedipal crisis can be interpreted on a purely biological level or transposed to a theory of social construction of gender when viewed in association with Lacan’s theories of cultural bestowal of meaning on anatomy. Through the lens that Lacan’s theories provide, Rubin asserts that the social rules associated with the kinship system are taught to children, dictating their sexuality. Before these rules are learnt, that is, before the Oedipal crisis occurs, children are bisexual and androgynous and the crisis is resolved when the child accepts and conforms to these rules and therefore develop heterosexuality and gender.

Rubin then ties together the conclusions drawn from the analysis of Lévi-Strauss and Freud to explain the social conditions that create female repression. Rubin states that Lévi-Strauss’s kinship theory relies on Freud’s Oedipal creation of sex distinction and the kinship system enforces heterosexuality and male domination, leading to female oppression. Rubin questions these structures, asserting that modern society no longer relies on kinship systems; they continue only as deeply embedded tradition. Rubin hopes for a feminist revolution that will undermine this current sex/gender system, leading to the demolition of enforced gender, a state of androgyny and the elimination of sex oppression of any kind.

Since 1975, the year in which Rubin wrote this piece, there has been an astounding progression towards the fulfilment of Rubin’s dream for a genderless society. This can be seen in the recent landmark legal victory of gender neutral activist Norrie, which is breaking down the social construction of what constitutes as the definition of gender. It can also be seen in the slow demolition of gender transference to children. Both of these changes equate to the breakdown of the kinship system and the evolution towards Rubin’s dream of a genderless society.

A huge step towards breaking down concepts of gender can be seen in an article by CBC World News. On May 31 2013 it reported that it was no longer the case that individuals must be classified as either male or female in the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry in Australia. This decision was made by the New South Wales Court of Appeal after a neuter individual named Norrie was listed as ‘sex not specified’ in 2010 at the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. At this time it was claimed that the classification, or lack thereof, had been made in error and was revoked. Norrie then appealed the matter with Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The claim was rejected, so Norrie went to The New South Wales Court of Appeal where the case was successful. This policy only applies to non-biologically sex specific people, but the implication is that, in the future, it may apply to people who identify as gender neutral. This decision by the courts not only affects the lives of intersex, androgynous and neuter people, but it is a step forward in the breaking down of Lévi-Strauss’s definition of the kinship system of society, as discussed in Rubin’s essay. It is removing the need for absolute, polarised gender, which the kinship system has constructed for the purpose of marriage and reproduction, and the system by which females have become oppressed. The necessity of traditional power relations, social implications of gender and the institutions that relies on these has now been brought to the attention of the public sphere and the process of the elimination of these gender differences, and the concept of gender itself.

Norrie’s genderless classification also poses a question: can non-gender specific people get married? Marriage is an example of ‘gift exchange’ and the primary underpinning of Lévi-Strauss’s kinship system. However, without the classification between male and female marriage loses meaning within the kinship system, breaking down the system in the process.

The article also draws attention to non-gender-specific pronouns. The use of the term ‘zie’ is used in place of ‘he’ or ‘she’ and ‘hir’ is used in place of ‘him’ or ‘her’. This does much the same in breaking down stringent definitions of gender and the need to be either male or female.

Within the same article, the connection between Norrie’s situation and that of Storm, a gender neutral child, was drawn. Storm’s parents made the decision to withhold the gender of their child, in order to avoid the gender impositions of society being transposed onto hir, so Storm could make hir own decision as to which gender to identify as, if any. The parents received a widely negative reaction from friends and family for this decision, with some saying that it was wrong to “impose their ideology on the child” (Leonard, 2011). However, this is exactly what raising a child within strict gender codes does. Raising a child within a socially constructed set of rules determining which personality traits they must supress in order that society may strictly categorise them by gender, can be defined as imposing ideology on the child. The example of Storm’s situation is a step in the direction of ending the manifestation of the Freudian Oedipal crisis. When Lacan’s theories are used to frame this crisis, with bestowal of meaning rather than biological interpretation, Storm’s parents can be seen to be refraining from bestowing engendered meaning on Storm’s anatomy by restricting knowledge of hir biological sex. In addition, they are providing equal access to stereotypical toys and clothing of both genders. This allows Storm to develop hir own individual meanings. Rather than classify identity-forming constructs as belonging to either ‘boys’ or ‘girls’, they are simply things that are either liked or not liked. Thus Storm develops an identity that is separate from gender. There has been an increase of similar attempts by families to raise their children as gender-neutral until the child chooses which gender, if any, is most applicable.

Both of the examples presented in the news article are of individuals, but the support they are receiving in their efforts to challenge gender identity shows society’s willingness to begin the process of breaking down these distinctions. As these distinctions diminish, so will society’s traditional underpinning of kinship systems, and Rubin’s vision of a genderless society will come into fruition.

References

Leonard, T., 2011, ‘The baby who is neither boy nor girl: As gender experiment provokes outrage, what about the poor child's future?’, Mail Online, accessed May 1 2013, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391772/Storm-Stocker-As-gender-experiment-provokes-outrage-poor-childs-future.html>

CBC World News, 2013, ‘Australian court OKs 3rd sex choice on birth documents’, accessed May 31 3013, <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/31/australia-gender-ruling.html>

Rubin, G., 1975, ‘The Traffic of Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex.’ Toward an Anthropology of Woman. Ed. Rayna Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 157-2010

#gender #gaylerubin #uni done #norrie #equality #marriage #academic #essay #GEN110 #university

0 notes