Reading Response 9/26

This week’s (and last week’s) readings enhanced my understanding of Michel Foucault’s theories, especially his work in The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. The first chapter of Somerville’s Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture utilized the framework Foucault set up in The History of Sexuality. Somerville focuses on the emerging scientia sexualis discourses in the 19^th century. Like Foucault, Somerville framed her analysis on the shift from crime/ prohibition to perversion/ abnormality. Unlike Foucault, Somerville fills in more historic details with the introduction of discourses about race and to some extent about gender to the discourse of sexuality. However, Foucault’s “domains” of the “psychiatrization of perverse pleasure” and the “hysterization of women’s bodies” is still relevant and present in Somerville’s analysis (Foucault, 1978, p. 104-105). Somerville points out similarities and the somewhat tautological relationship between medical discourses involving race and (homo)sexuality, which was her argument for the chapter (and presumably the book). Following Foucault’s framework, Somerville also provided some examples of the reverse discourses by critics of the hegemonic discourse about homosexuality and sexual inversion such as writers like Edward Carpenter and Edward Stevenson/ Xavier Mayne drawing from their contemporaries’ discourses of race and evolution to advocate for homosexual rights (Somerville, 2000, p. 20, 32).

Somerville also seems to hint on a racialized domain of the hysterization of women’s bodies in this chapter with the samples of detailed comparative anatomy accounts of the sexual anatomy of women as well as the numerous amount of medical scrutiny the sexual anatomy of African women received at that time. It is implied that this amount of quantification of women’s bodies is a form of control in both Somerville’s and Foucault’s analysis, but I wish this concept was elaborated. Like how these historic discourses about homosexuality continued to influence present day discourses (it was only until 1973/ 1974 that homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), these discourses about the sexuality of women of color echo in many contemporary controlling images of the sexualities of women of color. Perhaps, further along this course, we will discuss/ read about this in detail. This critique or want for more discussion brings up de Lauretis’ critique of Foucault and the distinction between Foucault’s “technology of sex” and de Lauretis’ “technology of gender.” De Lauretis points out that Foucault fails to take in account of gendered “form[s]” of sexualities (1987, p. 14). Combined with Somerville’s discussion, racialized forms are missing as well (though, I would argue that Foucault does address class). However in the larger scope of Foucault’s framework of normalizing power as opposed to prohibiting power, the unspoken norm is white, middle-class/ bourgeois, and male.

This leads to Butler’s discussion on the limitations of discourses such as how “coming out” discourses and labeling leaves much to be desired (pun not intended) in discussing sexuality and identity. Butler also brings up an interesting distinction that seems to fall out the cracks of Foucault’s framework. Butler distinguishes two types of oppression: “overt prohibition” and covert “unviable (un)subjects…who are neither named nor prohibited” (Butler, 1991, p. 20). “Overt prohibition” fits in the Foucauldian framework as it allows for reverse discourse as a point of resistance, but the “abjects” that are simply not present at all do not have this strategy. In short, the readings bring up the frustrations of the absence of varieties of genders, races/ ethnicities, sexualities, and bodies in everyday discourses.

Reading Response (9/19)

Teresa de Lauretis’ “The Technology of Gender” was far from an easy read. I can’t actually remember the last time I had such trouble understanding what I was reading. However, there were a few points she makes that I understood. I think de Lauretis’ discussion of gender and how it is completely cultural and should be eradicated completely is so uncomplicated that it’s almost inaccurate. Although gender and sex are completely different, gender cannot be replaced with this unitary view of sexuality. There are differences between the male and female and they shouldn’t be ignored. Perhaps de Lauretis wants gender to be eradicated because traditional roles for women are oppressive and constricting, but rejecting gender separatism won’t solve misogyny.

I very much agree with de Lauretis when she notes how the female sexuality is not owned by women, but by men. Film and pop culture constructs “women as an image, as the object of the spectator’s voyeurist gaze”. This is because most of the media industries and technology industries are male dominated. Men make things for the view of other men since they’ve been the most important target market since the beginning of Hollywood. With this in mind, the woman in media is always sexualized and idealized in the eyes of man.  The pornography industry is the prime example of how the male gaze is the only one represented in society. Hence, since most females are represented through the eyes of man, we (as women) do not own our sexuality. Our bodies become our currency as we learn from the ripe age of 3 that while boys are learning to use their strength to manipulate their surrounding, we learn to present ourselves as objects to be looked at.

I really liked how de Lauretis defined gender as a social relation that represents an individual and is separate from sex because although children have a sex, they do not have a gender until they realize their place and fit in society as either man or woman. It’s just interesting because I remember up until middle school, our teachers taught us that sex and gender were interchangeable and the same. To simplify things for us, I guess for our identities our sex and gender did match up (cis-gender), but it completely ignores and invalidates the experiences and voices of transgender people.

Reading Response 2: de Lauretis

I found de Lauretis essay to be an interesting yet confusing read. It’s hard to grasp what she’s trying to say in a lot of the essay because she circles around a topic and uses multiple sources without properly explaining them. Sometimes I felt like I was reading a puzzle or a tongue twister due to how she tried to convey a point and how wordy her sentences were.

I agree with her when she says that there is a problem with Althusser’s statement, “ideology has no outside”. When he says outside I think he’s referring how people can’t see things from an objective point of view because they’re trapped within their own ideology and believe in their decisions. de Lauretis disagrees and says there is an outside where ideology can be seen for what it is. Often people feel that science is the only thing that can be logical but de Lauretis argues that people can look at a subject and be rational about it, in this case it’s about gender.

I think she brings feminism to a whole new level that I never thought of and I also find it quite silly at the same time. She talks about how when we fill out forms guys and girls check out the female and male box and therefore define themselves as being of that gender.  She talks about how when we marked that F on the form you are not only marking that form but also marking yourself and how that mark sticks to us. I feel that she’s viewing female as being a negative thing. She seems to want to break away from these labels and not have the existence of female and male but it’s only normal that people who are essentially different in certain ways are labeled differently. I don’t see myself being female as a bad thing, it’s just like how we have labels for everything else in this world, in race, ethnicity etc. For me when I think of feminism I don’t think of wanting to be the same as men. There are just certain things where we would like to have the same privilege to.

Once again she seems to not want to accept the differences between a male and a female when she says. “In other words, only by denying sexual difference (and gender) as components of subjectivity in real women, and hence by denying the history of women’s political oppression and resistance, as well as the epistemological  contribution of feminism to the redefinition of subjectivity and sociality, can the philosophers see in “women” the privileged repository of “the future of mankind.” The fact is, men and women do have differences. Personally I’m okay with those differences and don’t expect us to the same in every single way. One thing I do think she brings up a good point in regards to feminism and technology are movies and how they play a role in setting up this gender role. Movies often portray this cliche idea of how women and men should be and the mannerisms depicted in these movies are then brought into society once again.

Reading Response: de Lauretis

The part of the de Lauretis reading that interested me was the discussion of the sexualization of the female body. In Western culture, a connection is made between the woman and sexuality, and the woman’s body becomes something sexual. This is prevalent in many films, where, according to feminist film theorists, the female body becomes an image, an “object of the spectator’s voyeuristic gaze.” This reminded me of a book I have read previously to this, John Berger’s Ways of Seeing, in which he discusses the woman as an image to be looked at by men in paintings and other works of art.  As our culture becomes more technologically advanced, this concept becomes increasingly prevalent.

I also was interested in a part of the passage that stated “Even when it is located in the woman’s body, sexuality is perceived as an attribute or a property of the male.” So the conclusion that I draw from this is that women’s bodies are sexualized, often without their consent, and then they do not even have ownership of this sexuality, because sexuality belongs to men. This also only leaves room for heterosexuality, involving a woman’s body which represent “sexuality,” and a man who owns the “sexuality” that a woman’s body represents.

I think that the solution to this that de Lauretis perhaps doesn’t really touch upon is that I think we need to use technology to improve views on women are emphasize for the world that women are more to be looked and and are not just representations of sexuality but active participants.

A little humor

Doing Gender

(That’s Judith Butler. I got the image from Buzzfeed, but I don’t know who made it originally.)

Reading Response 2: de Lauretis

The chapter by Teresa de Lauretis “The Technology of Gender,” was far from an easy read. De Lauretis discusses our conceptions of gender and how we construct it. She brings up some interesting points about how gender really only exists when we conceive of it at all. And if we really wanted to wish away gender and gender separatism, all we have to do is stop thinking about it. I think de Lauretis’ conception of gender is largely over simplistic. Although I agree that gender is fluid, and is a construct that we make, a fair amount of it is tied to anatomy, and unchangeable biology. For example, the gender role of men being muscular and being athletic or doing activities or jobs that involve feats of brute strength, come from the biological differences that give men a body that is better built for these type of tasks.

Additionally, gender separatism is not necessarily a bad thing. The heart of most issues that the feminist movement seeks to address is not at the separation of genders, but at the inequality of them. More time should be spent on trying to balance the treatment across gender barriers instead of dissolving them completely. However, I do think that gender should be viewed as a more fluid entity than it is in the United States and in most Western cultures. In Western culture, we almost always only allow for two genders, man and woman, when really gender should be more of a spectrum with at least 3 or 4 categories, because our world is not always so black and white.

Regardless, my biggest problem with the piece is not the content, but the actual prose. I found de Lauretis to be repetitive, indirect, and dense. If she really wanted to prove her point better, she would made her work more accessible, and thus easier to constructively debate.

Reading Response 1

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Upon reading the Hunger Games for a second time, I was curious about whether it was a “feminist novel” or not.  When I read it the first time, I honestly was not thinking about it that way and was only reading it for the story, which I found emotionally engaging.  After reading it a second time, I’m honestly not sure.

From the beginning of the book, protagonist Katniss Everdeen does not conform to traditional gender norms.  She takes on the role of provider for her mother and sister after her father’s death.  Her best friend, Gale, is a boy who is also the provider for his family after his father’s death.  Katniss is tough—she hunts, kills, and guts animals, has no room for sympathy (wanted to drown a kitten, pg 3), and bargains on the black market Hob.  She is jealous when other girls talk about Gale—but only because she doesn’t want to lose a good hunting partner (pg. 10).  She also mentions that she doesn’t want to have children.

However, these qualities seem to come more out of her difficult lifestyle than out of a need to challenge the gender norms.  Life in Panem seems to be more centered on class than on gender—for example, both boys and girls compete together in the Hunger Games, and their capabilities seem to come more from their class/district status than anything else (each of the “Careers” is a worthy opponent, regardless of gender).  Also, Katniss’ entire life has been so difficult and harsh that it’s not difficult to imagine why she wouldn’t want to have to worry about protecting a child from the harsh life in District 12.

Although she may not want to ever have children, by the end of the novel, she isn’t sure about her feelings for Peeta Mellark, the other District 12 tribute who at times seemed to be her ally and at other times, her opponent.  Encouraged by Haymitch, she pretends to have feelings for Peeta in order to garner support from the public audience and wealthy sponsors.  These feelings faked for the cameras, and while in the arena, Katniss mostly competes thinking only of herself, not of her staged feelings.  She doesn’t want to kill Peeta, as she feels indebted to “the boy with the bread”, but at the same time, doesn’t want to be killed by him and his “allies”, the Careers.  This changes when it is announced that they can both win.  She takes care of Peeta, and continues to act out their romance; oblivious to the fact that Peeta isn’t acting.  By the time she does discover that, and as they return to District 12, Katniss realizes just how ambiguous her feelings are.

I was originally annoyed that Katniss “needed” to fall in love or feel some emotions for a male character—it seemed too cliché for a female protagonist.  But at the same time, it’s not like she does fall in love.  She does what she needs to do to survive.  She acts the part; she keeps Peeta alive; and she continues the story to keep the Capitol satisfied.  When watching the carefully curated film of their time in the Games, she sees Peeta looking out for her and she “sees” herself fall in love with Peeta.  She and Peeta have also been through one of the most stressful times imaginable—being hunted and hunting in order to stay alive, while on live TV.  She could easily develop “misappropriation of arousal”, the adrenaline rush of the Games associated forever with Peeta, her one lifeline during this highly stressful time.  It’s also easy to forget that they are still teenagers dealing with such physically and mentally strenuous issues.  The film and the psychological stress and bonding could easily influence Katniss into experiencing feelings that she may or may not truly have, and I think it’s totally reasonable to have this happen as part of the novel.

Reading Response (9/5)

I disagree with positivism as defined in liberal feminism. I don’t think there is a way to form experience and analyze it free from social conditions. Every experience is different based on what biases and what kind of framing takes place. Knowledge is not objective because we cannot decontextualize our experience, our thought, and our means of obtaining knowledge and giving it significance through application. Therefore, I think when it comes to technology development and design, the male experience is inherently different from the female’s. I understand that there are facts we accept universally to be true and irrefutable, but they exist in the space we’ve created. For example, something as basic as our understanding of numbers and language are something civilization just made up. This is, of course, a half-baked idea.

In this respect, I agree with socialist feminism in that it refuses positivism. I do believe that technology is a social product and is developed according to a culture’s values and beliefs. It’s ignorant to say that a white, middle class male’s experience and development of technology would be anything that resembles a black woman’s experience in a racist and sexist society. Essential feminism also brings the great point of saying that because men cannot conceive and give birth, they develop technology that seeks to dominate and exploit the natural world. The evidence is all around us as our Earth is suffering the abuse we have put it through. Interestingly, instead of admitting technology’s faults and valuing sustainability, our patriarchal society decides to invest in colonizing Mars! I wonder what technology a matriarchal society would have designed and believe that it would have been better with coexisting with our natural world instead of seeking to dominate and subdue it. I think Knut Sorenson brings the good point that women bring “caring values” to the science and technology field such as “rationale of responsibility”. With the defense of “out of sight, out of mind” thinking that backs pollution, animal cruelty, economic inequity, etc., our technological world needs the rationale of responsibility.

In terms of sexual identity, I think as a whole society has failed to address this “issue” (and I use the word issue sardonically). I feel there is a need for people to constantly be labeling and defining themselves as well as other as a shortcut to understand sexual identity as a black and white topic. However, I think terms that box us in as having attraction to only one gender or both is constricting. Why can’t we experience attraction freely based on a partner’s personality and individual characteristics instead of strictly being attracted to erogenous zones and body parts? Why does a history of homosexual/heterosexual tendencies mean we cannot possibly be attracted to another gender? This phenomenon is not universal: men in Ancient Greece and Melanesia engaged in gay sex acts, but were not considered gay in the slightest. I think our obsession with normalizing everyone and policing their bodies values being what is considered socially normal instead of natural.

Social constructionism is a new idea to me, but I agree with it. I think that although we have urges that are biological, the way we interpret them and give them meaning is purely social. For instance, a young man in Ancient Greece performing fellatio is not gay, but in the United States, it is starkly defined as a gay act. In this way, the same sexual act can be socially construed in very different ways. Because the social defines how we experience arousal and how we act on it, it influences how we shape it. However, I may be a moderate social constructionist since I don’t believe that without society, we would never acquire sexual drive. Sure, society shapes our sexual identities and somewhat creates it, but I don’t believe that it creates a feeling that is not there to begin with.

The Hunger Games Reading Response

I believe that Katniss’s strength is portrayed through the direct juxtaposition between her values and those of the Capitol. Her main priorities revolve around being able to take care of her family. The capitol revolves around more superficial purposes such as looking good and always being entertained. Katniss seems to be the voice of reason in this dystopian society. One scene that stood out for me was when she was at the dinner before the Games started where citizens of the Capitol took something to expel what they ate, just so that they could eat more. She saw this as wasteful and gluttonous while people of her own district starved to death. By steering away from allowing Katniss to get caught up in her own makeover and new lavish lifestyle, the author makes her a powerful character. Other young adult novels get sidetracked when the main character finds new lifestyle or when she falls in love and the focus shifts to her confusion. This is what sets this book apart from others: Katniss’s focus on the Games is always in the spotlight, with short bursts of information on her own inner turmoil. This also shows how Katniss remains focused on her main goals, to win for her family and do so without losing herself.

As different as this novel is compared to other young adult novels, the author does bring in romance and the love triangle. I wonder why we must live in a society where most books having to do with teenage female protagonists must have a romantic angle to sell books. If books with male protagonists do not have a “search for love” or “inner confusion on where the heart lies” story line, no one bats an eye. But we very rarely find books where the female protagonist’s main goals lie anywhere else but with finding the right boy. I do not think it is practical to have books and other forms of media to have other focuses besides the romantic angle in order for the work to be successful and that fact is very upsetting. Readers must congratulate the author of The Hunger Games for reminding us all that young women are capable of a lot more than just finding the right man.