What makes a girl a girl a girl, and a boy a boy? Is it the gifts they ask for during holidays or is it what they play at recess? In Intro to Women's Studies at Spelman College, one of the first lessons learned was the difference between sex and gender. Sex is determined at birth while gender is a social behavior that is learned, aka feminine traits and masculine traits. Before this course I had seen portrayals of transexuals on Law and Order and a 20/20 specials. I sympathized for theadolescents or youths who knew that they were in the wrong body. In Transgender Butch: FTM Body Wars and Masculine Continuum, readers are introduced to Fredd, a genetically born female who at the early age of nine was filmed by BBC because she identified herself as a boy. Different sex professionals ignored Fredd's feelings and dismissed him as an extreme tomboy.
However, it was in the next section of the reading that I became surpised in the shift of tone and subject matter. Feminism is a belief that has a plethera of different dynamics. One of them being Butch Females and Female Transgendered Males. I was surprised to find such a divide between transexuals and butch lesbians. It made me think about the modern mainstream American culture's desire to place everything in a finite category. On page 552, the author poses the question, "'Why, in this age of gender transivity, when many queers and feminists have agreed that gender is a social construct, is transexuality a widespread phenomenon? Why has there been little discussion of the of the shared experiences of masculine lesbians and FTMs?'"
This leads me to my critique. Feminism is supposed to be about the alleviation of oppression for everyone including women. What do labels do? The important thing is for people to remember the individual. No two experiences are alike, and comparing and contrasting tomboys, butch lesbians, and FTM's are irrelevant. In life transgendered people have to deal with border wars, mentioned on page 556. These are the potential social barriers such as which restroom is correct. Over analyzing who is a true feminist or a real woman is pointless and does not help accomplish the goals of feminism it just separates.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Feminism in Biology
Since I am more interested in reading novels, studying social studies, and writing, the absence or presence of feminism in biology never crossed my mind. When I first read the title of the reading The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology my mind raced. How could biology be biased? I was well versed in Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and the experimentation and abuse of women, but I had know idea how on a molecular level biology could be biased, let alone sexist. Through out the reading my mind went back and forth between the skewed view of biology. I am still not sure how I feel about it, since I don't have a strong background in science.
As soon as I started reading the section on Aristotle, "A Sperm Goes A 'Courting' I immediately rolled my eyes. I wondered why do we have to dissect everything? I briefly recounted my experience as a student in the sciences and I was always taught about the plight of the sperm fighting against all odds to fertilize the egg. I remember thinking the vagina was a hostile environment, but I did not relate into any type of metaphor or ideology. I just accepted it as fact. As I continued to read, I began to play devil's advocate. The article talks about "controls" we miss because of internalized gender bias. For centuries science was considered a domain for men, therefore many theories and concepts are told from only a male point of view. I believe there are no accidents and it was no accident that every story or video portrays the male reproductive system as the hero. After all, humans are retelling the facts they have received from biology with their own bias. And lastly, what's wrong with a putting a new spin on something?
Even though the articles making up this reading seemed a little extreme, since they were either outdated or reaching for issues anywhere in biology, the most compelling proof of the article was in the section, " ÊUPDATE ON FERTILIZATION METAPHORS: 1994 " by Scott Gilbert. The previous articles relating to sperm activity, gametes, and how a cell decides sex were nice, but compelling enough for me to change my whole entire outlook at science. When Gilbert broke down the evolution of our current battle of the sexes culture, the examples were concrete and compelling. The violent nature of the sperm mirrored the increasingly violent culture.
In paragraph 3 of this section current gender roles our applied to the fertilization process. "The egg is the ultimate source of all this warfare. 'The female does all she can to encourage them [the sperm]. The egg sends alluring chemical cues." But for all this encouragement, there are "tense maneuvers between well-armed sperm and fortified egg.' We live in an age of ambivalent signals. But it's worse than that. If the sperm is the ultimate warrior, the egg is the ultimate tease"(Gilbert). This was troubling to me, because this ideology really hit home for me. In order for humans to grasp science we personify everything.
The personification of science is where feminism needs to come in because science is a subtle often unacknowledged religion in the United States that we allow to define facts that reinforce inequality. Now with that said, I understand that no matter what, someone always can dig deep and find sexism at the root of anything, so how valid is all this? To me, whatever intrigues you to explore something is worth reexamining. From this reading I went from uninformed, to skeptical, to a curious skeptic. This article has definitely opened up my eyes. I am not ready to declare a position because I want to find out more information for my self.
As soon as I started reading the section on Aristotle, "A Sperm Goes A 'Courting' I immediately rolled my eyes. I wondered why do we have to dissect everything? I briefly recounted my experience as a student in the sciences and I was always taught about the plight of the sperm fighting against all odds to fertilize the egg. I remember thinking the vagina was a hostile environment, but I did not relate into any type of metaphor or ideology. I just accepted it as fact. As I continued to read, I began to play devil's advocate. The article talks about "controls" we miss because of internalized gender bias. For centuries science was considered a domain for men, therefore many theories and concepts are told from only a male point of view. I believe there are no accidents and it was no accident that every story or video portrays the male reproductive system as the hero. After all, humans are retelling the facts they have received from biology with their own bias. And lastly, what's wrong with a putting a new spin on something?
Even though the articles making up this reading seemed a little extreme, since they were either outdated or reaching for issues anywhere in biology, the most compelling proof of the article was in the section, " ÊUPDATE ON FERTILIZATION METAPHORS: 1994 " by Scott Gilbert. The previous articles relating to sperm activity, gametes, and how a cell decides sex were nice, but compelling enough for me to change my whole entire outlook at science. When Gilbert broke down the evolution of our current battle of the sexes culture, the examples were concrete and compelling. The violent nature of the sperm mirrored the increasingly violent culture.
In paragraph 3 of this section current gender roles our applied to the fertilization process. "The egg is the ultimate source of all this warfare. 'The female does all she can to encourage them [the sperm]. The egg sends alluring chemical cues." But for all this encouragement, there are "tense maneuvers between well-armed sperm and fortified egg.' We live in an age of ambivalent signals. But it's worse than that. If the sperm is the ultimate warrior, the egg is the ultimate tease"(Gilbert). This was troubling to me, because this ideology really hit home for me. In order for humans to grasp science we personify everything.
The personification of science is where feminism needs to come in because science is a subtle often unacknowledged religion in the United States that we allow to define facts that reinforce inequality. Now with that said, I understand that no matter what, someone always can dig deep and find sexism at the root of anything, so how valid is all this? To me, whatever intrigues you to explore something is worth reexamining. From this reading I went from uninformed, to skeptical, to a curious skeptic. This article has definitely opened up my eyes. I am not ready to declare a position because I want to find out more information for my self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)