I want to begin by sharing with you the humor of picking up my packet from paradigm today. I walked in and the clerk immediately disappeared and returned with a copy of the coursepacket. I was floored; how did this person know that I was taking this class? Apparently this is the only packet that they were selling today so the clerk automatically knew what I had come for.
If you don't find this as funny as I do then maybe you just had to be there.
Anyways, I appreciate that this text manages to lift masculinity off of men, making it a wearable, prosthetic device. It is interesting that masculinity can be pointed out but not defined in the same way as femininity. I know that one of the main criticisms we have been confronted with is society's need to fit people into the category of two genders and even two sexes, yet I cannot help but think the binary system might have some truth to it. In biology, the number two is fundamental in that sexual reproduction requires the fusion of TWO gametes. So perhaps instead of there being two sexes and two genders, there might be two sexes and a multiplicity of genders. A major problem with the public restroom is the fact that although they are not always outfitted with gender-specific paraphernalia, they are, as Halberstam asserts, assigned a publicly accepted stance as gender-specific. I work at a restaurant that has two bathrooms, each accomodating one person, and each assigned a gender. I notice customers and employees often obey the unspoken rule of using these bathrooms: if the women's room is occupied and the men's is not, a woman will wait until her sex-designated restroom becomes vacant. The situation is equally true for men.
another thought in support of this: a woman can be masculine without being gay; a man can likewise be feminine without being gay; the same can be said for masculine men and feminine women. I see femle masculinity as performing masculinity without trying to hide ones female-ness.
having said my peice, perhaps I am also stuck in the common paradigm of binary sexes. Or maybe I have not said anything new. Thoughts?
Posted by fine0040 at July 13, 2005 04:23 PMI found Halberstam's reading to be very interesting an thought provoking since
it easily pointed out things that I have often overlooked. I particularly liked
her discussion of "Tomboys." I grew up with an older brother and I tried to take
after him, therefore producing my "tomboy years." Although I recognized that I
grew out of my tomboy years I never stopped to realize that it was forced upon
me by my family and society. Looking back I find it humourous that my mother
only purchased me skirts as back to school clothes my eighth-grade year... I
also liked Halberstam's discussion on the identities placed on people by
society. Like our class discussion in which society places people into tiny
boxes in order to feel complete, to "understand" and "know" everything,
Halberstam mentioned that language often "forces nonmembers into memberships
they cannot fulfill." This forced membership can lead to misidentification and
identity confusion. Halberstam's continued discussion of the bathroom problem
furthers her argument that gender-ambiguous people, those who do not fit the
boxes of man nor woman, suffer dilemmas from society in something as basic as
choosing which bathroom to use. In other words, I agree with Halberstam that the
male/female definitions in society often exclude many people.
Wow, even though I knew these dilemmas existed, I never gave much thought to them; just because they didn't apply much to me. But now, that just makes me feel arrogant. I found the section on the bathroom problem to be extremely interesting in the fact that it's a common problem. Having "male" and "female" bathrooms, as stated, often exclude many people, and therefore cause many people not to go to the bathroom in public. Not only because they dont know which bathroom to use, but because of what might happen if the go into the "wrong" bathroom.
I also liked Halberstam's discussion of "tomboys". I know that many families go through that same "problem". My mom used to tell me that she was a tomboy growing up, and her twin was the epitome of a "girly-girl". This made it especially hard because her mother told her that she had to play with doll's because thats what her sister did. This example furthers the argument on how society poses which acts are acceptable for women and which aren't. Girls are supposed to be "feminine" and males are supposed to be masculine with no feminine traits.
Unfortunately, I have been thinking the same way society has about the "bathroom problem" just because I havent been exposed to any other way of thinking. Sad.
Like the previous two comments the section of the text that I found to be the most facinating was the section talking about tomboys. In our society a tomboy can be described as a female that does things others describe as masculine. A tomboy can be described by many as 'strong/tough/independent', "she can do anything the boys can do". I wondered while reading this: what do we call a male who acts in a way that society views as feminine? The answers that I came up with were negative things like girly or woosey. A boy is never looked at as well-rounded for being able to color coordinate his clothing or bake a pie. These are things society views that single-gender oriented.
When I read about the single sex bathrooms an old sketch on Saturday Night Live came to mind called "It's Pat". No matter how politically incorrect or insulting this clip was, the audiences loved it. It was a sketch which all revolved around the gender of a person named Pat. Two of Pat's so-called friends spent the numerous sketches trying to trick Pat into displaying which gender Pat was through gender-oriented activities. One of the final sketches was of Pat walking towards 2 bathroom doors - one male and one female. This example shows how gender oriented our culture is that a show and later a movie can revolve only around gender norms.
I too, appreciated much of Halberstam's article. for one, much more readable than Butler's although Butler's challenged me in so many ways to rethink everything I know about gender and she will continue to challange me i'm sure. I don't agree that there are two sexes, I suppose in the very biological sense, yes we need two sexes to procreate. But beyond that, what of people who are born with both sexes (genitalia) what are they? or those born with an underdeveloped penis or an over developed clitoris. What of those born with some form female genitalia, but no ovaries and penises but no testicles. What are these people, they can't procreate, actually alot of people can't. What do we name them. Do They have no sex? Or we perform some horrible genital mutilation upon them so they fit into the male/female binary/ urinary segregated catagories. And what horror stories do they have to tell about trying to fit into this punitive binary system of sex/gender naming. I wonder what their "I" means. I have read about native/indiginous cultures of the Americas that actually did have at least three catagories of "sex" those who couldn't be named male or female and they were giving a honored, respected and esteemed positions in these cultures, considered to be Shamen and healers. I don't want to go on about this I should discuss todays reading. I too appreciated the tomboy discussion and the "urinary segregation" discussion. But, I appreciated the film critique of 'The Member of the Wedding' and how Frankie "was a memeber of nothing in the world" and tried to reinvent herself by giving herself a new name or trying to use our limited gendered language to reinvent who she was in the world. but she couldn't do it because as Butler discusses it is through language in which we are first labeled he/she and then disscover all the power and priviledge that accompanies that or not depending on your label.
Posted by: lesli asher at July 13, 2005 07:06 PMI also found Halberstam to be interesting, but confusing at the same time because she bring a lot different topics and agruements that seem to make it unclear about what is really masculinity. Halberstam seem to lead me in thinking that female masculinity is the circle where everything that she said about relate back to it. Whereas masculinity is not just one specific term to idenitfy gender. I found this thinking of mine werid but I found that some of the things she talked about masculinity are some true and noticeable. During the first two page of her writting where she wrote about male being more dominant than women within a society, cultural society, and family. How women are being cast out so that male are more noticeable in the world. I found this male domination so irriating because it seem to give society the ideas that they can label a person a male or female depending on those behaviors.(sigh.) I said this because I found myself and my boyfriend talking about how a person can tell whether a person is a male or female. He pointed out how different a female amd male tell direction. I was shock to realize it was kind of true. I also like her discussion about the tomboy because when I was little, I used to dress like a tomboy. My family used to alway yell at me about being a tomboy, saying that it is against cultural rules, but I didn't let it effect me because I feel that people should just judge a person from her clothes and her behaviors. The tomboy female's behavior can change back when she grow older, and there is physical female body part that tell her that she should act like a boy. It is hard to explian what I am trying to say, but that is just what I thought. I also like her discussion about the bathroom. When I got to the bathroom discussion, i felt sad for that person in the story because I think that a person can't change thier physical appearance. However, I agree with Erica about people not wanting to use the public bathroom. Her discussion about homosexual and lesibian is confusing to me so I am not even going to talk about. I need to do more thinking about that discussion.
Posted by: Kalia Chang at July 13, 2005 07:36 PMThank you Eileen, what a relieve.
First just by looking over the title I expected a complicated “female masculinity” theory analysis, but it wasn’t that bad. I have to admit I was intimidated and afraid by the article.
Overall I would say it was an very interesting and enlightening article, it broad up things that I could comprehend easy, because her article is written not only women studies scholar, it was well written and not too complicated.
What I liked most about her article is the topic she titles the “bathroom problem”, because this fits well what we discussed in our first and second class discussion. We discussed in our class not only what the definition of gender was, but also what marks female and male and the social role that are associated with the genders. Eileen mentioned the example how the little kid was confused because she had short her, and the kid couldn’t identify if she was a boy or girl. It shows that the kid was confused and missing something, because Eileen didn’t have a proper gender specifying marking the long hair. The concept of the “Bathroom problem” is about the same people need to see the common “regulated” gender marking such as the long hair, breast in order to let you use public facilities such as bathrooms. By the time the gender is not clear, it causes problems and people do not feel contented with the situation. This also ties with our discussion that if you fail to fit into the certain “box” that you belong to, the environment around you gets out of the balance. This is what the article highlighted.
Thank you Eileen, what a relieve.
First just by looking over the title I expected a complicated “female masculinity” theory analysis, but it wasn’t that bad. I have to admit I was intimidated and afraid by the article.
Overall I would say it was an very interesting and enlightening article, it broad up things that I could comprehend easy, because her article is written not only women studies scholar, it was well written and not too complicated.
What I liked most about her article is the topic she titles the “bathroom problem”, because this fits well what we discussed in our first and second class discussion. We discussed in our class not only what the definition of gender was, but also what marks female and male and the social role that are associated with the genders. Eileen mentioned the example how the little kid was confused because she had short her, and the kid couldn’t identify if she was a boy or girl. It shows that the kid was confused and missing something, because Eileen didn’t have a proper gender specifying marking the long hair. The concept of the “Bathroom problem” is about the same people need to see the common “regulated” gender marking such as the long hair, breast in order to let you use public facilities such as bathrooms. By the time the gender is not clear, it causes problems and people do not feel contented with the situation. This also ties with our discussion that if you fail to fit into the certain “box” that you belong to, the environment around you gets out of the balance. This is what the article highlighted.
It is this kind of text that at the same time makes me depressed and yet
also I am given incentive and encouragement to do more. Similar texts may
include: speeches by our (uuhhh) ‘President’, figures on the depletion of
the rainforest and the ice caps, and the accounts of people dying in wars.
Everyone knows that right now, there are people being hurt because of their
skin color, sex, or religion. Everyone knows that their family and friends
are homophobic, racist, or classist (not a word). And yet, whenever we
read accounts of these atrocities, and we learn of their solutions, it is
difficult to not simply think “ok, so we’ll all just forget about sex, skin
color, and income.” This is not possible, and maybe our knowledge of that
is part of the reason that we are all doing this class called “women’s
studies.”
So, once we drag ourselves out of this male-oriented masculinity, in which
direction do we go? Tomboy masculinity seems like a good choice, so many
of us were tomboys as kids, right? So…this should be common ground, right?
Well, I remember the sour looks in the public women’s bathrooms, and
being questioned as to my physiological sex, and I turned out to be a well
rounded person, so maybe I could deal with those things again. And what
about this Smith character, trying to convince us that, “the intersection
of maleness and masculinity does ‘still’ make a difference?” (16) How do
you convince someone that cake is good for you, when he’s already decided
that it’s poisonous? Honestly, where do these people come from? (like
serial killers---where?) So here I am, a butch in Target needing to pee,
and I still haven’t picked out which wrapping paper I want to buy, what do
I do? Knowing me, I leave without the paper. What kind of society forces
people to refrain from a biologically necessary (and quite insistent) act?
(This is often a question I ask myself while in a foreign country). This
“violent enforcement of our current gender system” (25) is getting quite
disgusting, I mean, Who Cares????
I found this article extremely eye opening . . . I never considered these issues before and as I read I felt more and more naive and ignorant. I found it very interesting that tomboyism is so acceptable in children but not in adolescents. It made me think of my own little sister who was such a tomboy when we were growing up, in stark contrast to me who was the epitome of a girly-girl. This part of the article made me feel very guilty because I know I was a huge part of her adolescent socialization out of being a tomboy. I wanted my sister to be more like me and it’s weird because now my sister and I are so much alike you can hardly tell us apart. But reading what was said about tomboys made me feel very guilty and also makes me wonder what that transition was really like for her and what my role may have been in changing who she was and how she portrayed herself. On a totally separate note I did find it very interesting when, on page 19, Judith Halberstam talked about how she was able to define herself as “butch” in her mid-twenties. I just thought this was an interesting comment that corresponded strongly to Butler’s stress on language and how powerful it is in defining gender roles.
Posted by: Lara at July 13, 2005 08:30 PMI was very engaged in this article. I found many things humorous and intrigued by the sarcasm. When reading the article on James Bond and how his boss M was more masculine than he was I laughed out loud. "It is M who convinces us that sexism and misogyny are not necessarily part and parcel of masculinity, even though historically it has become difficult, if not impossible, to untangle masculinity from the oppression of women." It's basically saying that James Bond could only be masculine by dominating women. Other than that he wasn't much hero without the gadgets either.
Another topic I liked was on Tomboys. It was interesting and true that girls at a young age are allowed to be tomboys and being a tomboy was acceptable until girls became teenagers. In the article it mentions "Tomboyism generally describes an extended childhood period of female masculinity" and I thought...hmmm. Why is it that when a girl is not girlish she is label a tomboy and when she grows up she is then labeled something else? When a girl becomes a woman she then has to conform and do womanly things to prove that she can raise a family and be feminine. If not then she poses as a problem to people who do not understand. And I agree with Lora. Who really cares?
Posted by: Susan at July 13, 2005 08:50 PMThis reading sure was easier than the one we read the other day...only it was much longer. Halberstam's reading on masulinity sure is interesting. Like how she talked about her experienced with the public bathrooms. I never have thought about how having public bathrooms limited by the labels of only females and males could be problematic to other people. Since i never had that problem, i just never realize this and know for sure that if i was in that position, i would be really embarrassed about going into what people thought the wrong bathroom for me. Also, when she talked about tomboys, i also relized that i could relate to that. As a child, i have kind of grown up acting as a tomboy. I hung out with mostly boys, like to fight for fun a lot with my neighbor boy friends and was very agrressive. I never noticed it before but now that i have thought about it, i remembered that during that time, there was a boy who liked me but by the way he act towards me, it was like he wasn't sure if he should like me since i did not really act like a girl. Maybe he was confused about my gender.
I think people should not take female masculinity as a big problem but should just find ways to accept it because if it is a problem, then how can females be who they are, if they are always afraid of what other people will think of them?
Masculinity within a woman creates a mighty powerful woman. Labels are thrown at her just because she decides not to wear any makeup or wear a dress. She can stand up for herself without having any man protect her. She is able to change her own tire and does not have a problem getting dirty. Infact, she loves getting dirty. She is labeled a "Tomboy" because of it. Why can't she be labeled a "Sarahgirl"? Why does the "boy" have to be associated with "her" name? I have a problem with that. This directly explains why masculinity is defined solely in association with males. If a girl is masculine she is a "boy" and not a girl who happens to not be ashamed of her masculinity. Labels can create direction for people at times, but I feel they only create strict rules with what a person is suppossed to live up to. With that said, I disagree with labels. And for the record, I hate it when people call me a tomboy just because of my masculine qualitites. I dislike it because I am in the "boy" category and I am not associated with the "girl." I believe there may be some contradiction in my labeling banter. Well, I will take comments if anyone wants to respond.
Posted by: Jennifer at July 14, 2005 07:59 AMHalberstam seems to have borrowed key analysis from Butler. They both share the idea that feminitity and masculinity have been constructed to be imposed and maintained on types of human bodies. Halberstam applies this subversive concept-that masculinity is performative, not foundational to gender identity- to explore masculinity owned by females. I find Halberstam’s examination as potentially empowering for masculine females because it emphasizes the legitimacy of drag kinging by actually studying it with respect and bringing it to the gender discourse; in comparison with heterosexist and feminist studies that have labeled butch women as subhuman. Honestly, little more than a year ago, I thought transgender people had to be nutty, or not happy with themselves to not happy with themselves to behave as such. But thanks to friends and texts like these, that speak of compulsory heterosexuality, I can better understand why people identify outside of the normative.
Posted by: Juan at July 14, 2005 05:17 PMThank you guys.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]
You`ll be glad to watch this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]
You`ll be glad to watch this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]
You`ll be glad to watch this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]