Rosser/Freedman/Fausto Sterling

Sue V. Rosser, Anne Fausto Sterling, and Estelle B. Freedman, in their respective writings all take on the task of trying to uncover the complexities of feminist conceptions, gender norms, and ultimately trying to redefine how people view feminism.

Sue V. Rosser in her essay “Using the Lenses of Feminist Theories to Focus on Women and Technology” defines the many different subsets of feminism. Most people, including myself, tend to simplify feminism and think of it as one omnipotent force. Rosser completely disproves this by listing ten different types of feminism, and their implications in technology and the labor force. Feminism is not a simple all encompassing philosophy but rather a spectrum in which various nuanced beliefs exist. Just like any political or religious belief, feminists can argue internally over their politics and where they stand in the belief spectrum.

Additionally, Rosser challenges the norms behind technology. Before reading the piece, I took the usage, design, and production of technology very much for granted. I never thought of the complex gender relations that were present in almost every aspect of our technological world. After reading about the many ways that feminists theorize technology I cannot view it the same way.

Anne Fausto-Sterling in the first chapter “Dueling Dualisms,” of her book Sexing the Body, also discusses the complexities behind defining gender and sexuality. She presents a variety of arguments, some scientifically based, and some socially based, but concludes that gender and sexuality are a combination of both biological occurances paired with social circumstances. Before reading Fausto-Sterling’s article I was already aware of the complexities that make up gender and sexuality. After debating in high school for four years I was exposed to a fair amount of critical feminist literature, such as Judith Butler’s works, that made its way into the debate round. Fausto-Sterling’s analysis contributes to the common theme between the three works of revealing the nuances of feminist theory as well as challenging current conceptions and norms behind it.

Finally, in No Turning Back, Estelle B. Freedman, questions the assumptions of women’s role in the labor force, as well as our perceptions of feminism. Freedman raises a very important point about the stereotypical notions of feminism. She presents the surprising statistic that in a 2000 poll of Americans, 85 percent said they support equal rights for women, when asked if they identified as feminists only 29 percent said they did (Freedman 10). This clearly portrays the negative connotations that our country holds about the term and study feminism. I find this to be very true even in Macaulay. At Hunter, feminism is considered a dirty word. When registering for classes my peers advise me on whether or not to take a certain professor’s class based on if she is a feminist or not. Freedman explores where this negative connotation came from and like Rosser, explains the nuances within the study of feminism and how it is not the omnipotent force the stereotype makes it out to be.

All three readings force the reader to think critically about the norms and many mundane experiences in every day life.